home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Media Share 9
/
MEDIASHARE_09.ISO
/
hamradio
/
hf_sta.zip
/
HF_STA.IWI
< prev
Wrap
Text File
|
1992-08-07
|
84KB
|
1,623 lines
.pl 99
.po 0
.op
ARRL votes to squelch automatic HF Digital Operations
Tom Clark, W3IWI
W3IWI@W3IWI.MD (packet)
w3iwi@amsat.org (Internet)
The month of July saw an incredible amount of activity pertaining to the
continuation of the ARRL-sponsored STA (Special Temporary Authorization)
which permitted automatic, unattended digital operation on HF bands.
By way of review, when the FCC adopted NPRM 85-105 it permitted unattended
digital operation, which gave us the opportunity to build VHF/UHF packet
networks. However this permission was not extended below 30 MHz.
To extend the line-of-sight links to provide trans- and inter-continental
extensions of the packet networks, in 1987 the ARRL requested an STA from
the FCC to allow a selected list of amateurs the same priviledges on HF.
Thus was born SKIPNET.
The initial STA was for for a period of 180 days, and in 1988 the ARRL was
granted an extension based on this letter:
January 5, 1988
Mr. Ralph A. Haller, Chief
Private Radio Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
Drar Mr. Haller:
In re: STA for HF Automatic Packet Operation
The American Radio Relay League respectfully requests a one-
year extension of special temporary authority granted in your
letter 7230-J (Attachment A), dated July 7, 1987. The STA
expired 180 days after the grant, or January 3, 1988. The
purpose of the extension is to allow the HF packet-radio
automatic message-forwarding net to continue for the balance of
1988 while revised packet rules are under consideration. The
technical parameters of the STA remain as outlined in my letter
of June 2, 1987 Attachment B). Stations presently covered under
the STA are listed Attachment C.
During the 180-day STA period, we were successful in col-
lecting enough data and operating experience to show persuasively
that, with suitable safeguards, automatic operation of packet-
radio stations below 30 MHz is feasible and in the public inter-
est. Answers to specific questions are now being received from
individual stations, and the League will prepare a report docu-
menting the experiment. The conclusions are that the operation
has gone almost without incident and that those few instances of
introduction of improper traffic were dealt with effectively.
Several senior PRB personnel have, on several occasions,
stressed the need for changes to Part 97 of the Commission's
rules to cover packet-radio operation. The League's Executive
Committee on December 4 requested the ARRL Ad Hoc Committee on
Amateur Radio Digital Communication to draft new proposed lan-
guage to correct problems in the current rules. Also, the Digi-
tal Committee will consider wording appropriate to permit auto-
matic operation of packet-radio stations below 30 MHz. It is our
intent to petition for such rule changes during 1988 and as soon
as coordination is completed and approvals are obtained.
It is requested that the above-mentioned STA be extended
until the end of 1988 under the same conditions.
Sincerely,
David Sumner, K1ZZ
Executive Vice President
In the early years of the STA, the ARRL took heat from established users
of the HF spectrum because the packet operations had usurped portions of
the already crowded HF bands. This criticism came from domestic sources
(particularly the RTTY community) and from IARU member societies.
Well, the situation continued in limbo, with the STA being renewed annual
ly. To gather facts to assist the ARRL in proposing rules changes, the STA
community conducted an in-depth survey of activity and forwarded it on to
the ARRL. In advance of the 1990 STA renewal, the ARRL sent this letter to
the STA participants:
December 22, 1989
SKIPNET STATIONS
Gentlemen:
By now, you have heard that the League has filed a petition
for rule making with the FCC seeking permanent provisions for
automatic RTTY and packet operation within certain HF segments.
Meanwhile, ARRL Counsel Imlay, N3AKD, will request the FCC to
extend the SKIPNET special temporary authority for a year or
until permanent rules are adopted.
Perhaps it would facilitate understanding and discussion
of the issues if you have some of the background leading up to the
decisions represented by this petition.
I know I'm preaching to the faithful by saying that we need
automatic packet operation in the HF bands. Nevertheless, the
two and a half years that the SKIPNET STA has been in effect has
shown that (a) such operation is technically feasible, (b) the
network operations can be orderly without commercial
encroachment, (c) the spectrum can accommodate it without undue
displacement of other operations, and (d) HF automatic packet
operation performs a vital public service that has proven itself
in day-to-day and disaster communications. It's clear that
virtually all amateurs have come to the same general conclusions,
albiet reluctantly in a few cases, and have enjoyed the message-
handling service provided by the packet network. It is evident
that the FCC thinks amateur packet radio is a good thing,
including automatic operation on HF, by virtue of their granting
the STAs. Also, the FCC has made repeated requests for the
amateur community to propose some permanent packet rules with
adequate safeguards against prohibited transmissions.
For nearly two years, the ARRL committee on Amateur Radio
Digital Communication has been considering proposals for
permanent RTTY and data communications rules. These
deliberations were not done in a vacuum but in close coordination
with two other committees of the Board of Directors. While they
did not work on the RTTY and data sections specifically, the
Board's Ad Hoc Part 97 Rewrite committee handled everything else
in a way that would permit the RTTY and data sections to drop
right in. The Board's membership Services Committee (MSC) played
a pivotal role in the Rtty and data peitiion consideration,.
One of MSC's missions is band planning. While the Board has
other committees advocating certain types of operation (i.e., DX,
contests, repeaters, VHF-microwaves and digital), it is the job
of the MSC to try to strike a reasonable balance in their
spectrum needs. Having weighed the competing bandwidth demands
of the different users, the recommendations of the MSC still need
either full Board or Executive Committee approval prior to filing
a petition with the FCC. This petition was presented at the
Executive Committee's October 21 meeting (but not voted on at
that meeting in orfer to give the members more time to give it
careful consideration) and subsequently approved by
correspondence.
Now that we've reviewed the process, let's talk about the
merits.
o We started with a yes/no decision: Is automatic
operation on HF packet a good thing? Yes--you demonstrated that.
o Having decided that, should automatic operation be
permitted within the entire parts of the HF bands where RTTY and
data are allowed or just in certain segments? Certain segments--
to calm fears of other CW and RTTY operators both here and abroad
of unwarranted and uncontrolled proliferation of automatic
operation.
o Should the petition for automatic operation include
RTTY (Baudot and AMTOR)? Yes--we struggled with this but were
persuaded that there have been successful RTTY mailboxes longer
than packet, and there was an STA that demonstrated automatic
AMTOR operation. Also, as you know, AMTOR has some special
robust qualities and serves as links in some parts of the
worldwide (mostly) packet network.
o Now for the tough part: What specific frequency
segments? The ranges chosen in most bands are probably self-
evident. Let's just talk about the difficult ones--20 and 40
meters. Occasionally, it helps to state the obvious to update
any Van Winkles who have been asleep for 20 years... There is
no virgin spectrum in these two bands. Every kilohertz is used
by someone, sometime. In many respects, specific frequencies are
more emotionally held than ancestral hunting grounds. (Remember:
It's only a hobby?) It's hard enough to find some frequencies
that won't conflict with other users within the United States.
The specific frequencies used by SKIPNET stations have shown that
it's possible to shoehorn in with other U.S. users. But, we live
in a larger world, and we've received complaints from societies
in other countries about HF packet frequencies, particularly in
the 20- and 40-meter bands.
- On 20 meters, nearly every other country
operates phone in the 14.100-14.150 MHz range, and packet
operations in the lower part of that range have been a continual
cause of concern to them. This has been the case in all ITU/IARU
Regions including Region II-the Americas. The fact that some of
their own packet operators use frequencies above 14.100 has not
convinced the societies in other countries that this is a good
place for packet. The worldwide consensus (with some reluctance
on our part) is that packet should operate below 14.100. Of
course, that puts pressure on the Baudot RTTYers and AMTOR
RTTYers just below them in frequency andultimately on the CW
operations. If this can be done, however, maybe we can put one
problem behind us.
- On 40 meters, most countries have a narrower
band--only 7.0 to 7.1 MHz--into which they must squeeze CW, RTTY,
packet, phone and image communications. Around 7.040, or even as
low as 7.030, is where their phone band starts. So, you can
understand why there might be contention over packet and RTTY
around 7.090.
The frequency segments for each band were chosen after
careful review of domestic and international implications. While
we knew to begin with that there was no such thing as a "perfect
fit", we nevertheless had to try for a "best fit" solution. I
believe that others will come to the same conclusion after
deliberate, unemotional stufy of domestic and international
needs. Pleease bear in mind that we now have a viable packet
network that is worldwide in scope. As such, we need to use
frequencies that are compatible with the rest of the world. Even
with the frequency segments chosen, there may still be the need
for future adjustments, both by us and in other countries to
finally arrive at common segments for automatic operation.
The League's petition is not a fait accompli. There are
three points in the FCC's proceedings where individual inputs are
possible. We anticipate that individuals may wish to suggest
some changes in the frequency segments proposed by the League.
We believe such inputs to be helpful in cases where commenters
take the time to consider the domestic and international
implications of their proposals.
I thought you would like to have the above background.
We'll let you know as soon as possible about renewal of the STA.
Meanwhile, we wish you happy holidays and best wishes for the new
year.
Sincerely,
David Sumner, K1ZZ
Executive Vice Presicent
Well, the proposed rules changes were unacceptable to the RTTY/AMTOR
community who saw the STA as a sham. The ARRL continued to take heat from
the other IARU member societies. Unable to form a consensus, the situa
tion has been in limbo ever since. As a result, the STA continued with
annual renewals; the current STA extension expires the end 1992.
Also in early 1991, the FCC caused additional heartburn for the packet
radio network by citing a dozen east-coast stations (including W3IWI) for
automatically forwarding an Anti-war bulletin (I still call this the 900-
GATE affair). In that action, the community was informed that EACH packet
network station was responsible for the content of EACH message that
automatically passed thru his station. Clearly the FCC has a problem
understanding automatic operation within a network!
At the summer, 1991 ARRL Board meeting, the Directors made a decision to
split the functions of the old Digital Committee into two -- a Digital
Committee to look after the operational needs of the entire digital commu
nity, and an Advanced Techniques Committee to help design future systems.
To my knowledge, the ARRL never publicized the membership of either of the
new committees.
Early in 1992, the ARRL announced a survey of the needs of the entire
digital HF world. The STA group was told that they would be surveyed
separately for detailed comments on STA operations. Dale Sinner, W6IWO
through his publication RTTY Journal called on all the RTTY and AMTOR
users to respond en masse.
Imagine our surprise when, in early July the following ARRL Bulletin
appeared:
SB QST @ ARRL $ARLB058 ARLB058 Digital news
ZCZC AG80 QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 58 ARLB058
>From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT June 25, 1992
To all radio amateurs
SB QST ARL ARLB058
ARLB058 Digital news
The ARRL Committee on Amateur Radio Digital Communication
has reviewed the results of the January 1992 QST survey on
automatic unattended HF operation of digital stations, and
has submitted recommendations for ARRL Board consideration
at its July 17 meeting.
A clear majority of survey respondents opposed fully
automatic, unattended operation on HF. However, by a
ratio of two to one, respondents endorsed semi-automatic
operation, where there is a control operator present at
one end of the circuit.
The Digital Committee recommendations are consistent with
the survey results. The Committee is recommending that
FCC rules be proposed to permit semi-automatic digital
operation below 30 MHz, but not to permit fully-automatic
operation. Neither type of operation is presently
permitted, except under a special temporary authorization
granted to ARRL that will expire next January. The
recommendation includes language to protect other amateur
operations from interference in the event of a malfunction
of the unattended station.
The Committee also recommends that the use of unspecified
digital codes on HF be allowed, with bandwidth limited to
500 Hz below 28 MHz and to 2 kHz between 28.0 and 28.3
MHz, to encourage experimentation with more spectrum
efficient systems.
Finally, the Committee recommends greater efforts by the
League to educate amateurs interested in HF digital
operations, and to develop technical standards or
guidelines for spectrum- efficient digital communications
equipment.
ARRL Directors are now studying the recommendations of the
Digital Committee, in preparation for their formal
consideration July 17. At that time, the Board will have
the opportunity either to adopt the recommendations,
decline to adopt them, adopt them in modified form, or
postpone consideration.
NNNN
A number of SKIPNET members said "Huh??? What the **** is happening
here?". Calls to our local directors indicated that none of them had seen
the committee report. Most directors did not know who was on the Digital
Committee, or who had appointed the Committee members. One Director
thought that I was on the Committee and called me for information.
Well, we finally got a copy of the full report -- here is what it says,
verbatum:
---------------------
Minutes of the
ARRL Committee on Amateur Radio Digital Communications
June 13, 1992
The ARRL Committee on Amateur Radio Digital Communications met at
8:30 CDT on June 13, 1992 at the DFW Marriott Hotel, Dallas, TX.
Ed Juge, W5TOO, Chairman presided and Vic Poor, W5SMM acted as
recording secretary. In addition the following members were
present: Tom Comstock, N5TC, Craig McCartney, WA8DRZ, Paul
Newland, AD7I, and Dale Sinner, W6IWO. Bob Poirier, KODJ, was
unable to attend.
Comstock reviewed the role of digital communications in past
emergencies including the Mexico City earthquake and hurricane
Hugo.
Poor reviewed the current state of the art of current and soon to
be introduced digital modes and their impact on h.f. spectrum
utilization.
The Committee as a whole reviewed the responses from the Digital
Survey conducted by QST and RTTY Journal.
A lengthy discussion followed on all the issues raised in
connection with the operation of unattended amateur h.f. digital
stations. The recording secretary was directed to summarize these
discussions and the unanimously approved recommendations to the
ARRL Board in a separate report which is attached as a part of
these minutes.
Ed Juge, Chairman
Vic Poor, Recording Secretary
Report and Recommendation to the ARRL Board of Directors
by the
ARRL Committee on Amateur Radio Digital Communications
June 13, 1992
The ARRL Digital Committee has been asked by the ARRL Board of
study the issues related to use of automatic unattended control of
amateur stations operating digital modes in the h.f. spectrum and
to recommend what action the Board should take toward establishing
permanent rules for such operation, if any.
The Committee has carefully studied as many of the facts and
opinions as were available within the Committee's resources. Data
bearing on the question included:
The results of the ARRL Digit Survey;
Frequency usage and allocations in the U.S. and in other
countries;
The current state of the art for amateur h.f. digital modes;
Potential abuse of unattended operation such as illegal third
party traffic;
The various competing interests for h.f. spectrum,
particularly between existing digital modes; and
Amateur operating practices and traditions.
The ARRL Digital Survey
The members of the Committee carefully studied the tallies of
answers to the questions in the survey and read every written
comment submitted by the respondents. The survey data showed that
majority of respondents favored permanent authorization of
unattended semi-automatic operation but limiting semi-automatic
operation to sub-bands, and a substantial majority did not approve
of unattended fully-automatic operation.
A wide range of opinions and proposals were made in the comments
attached to the survey, all of which were discussed and weighed by
the Committee. The important issues raised are discussed below.
Frequency Usage and Allocations in the U.S. and other Countries
It is no secret that available space is very limited in the h.f.
spectrum. Nowhere is that more evident than in the very popular 20
and 40 meter bands. The two oldest modes of operation, voice and
c.w., have the lion's share of the spectrum in those bands since
they were in heavy use before there were any digital modes. The
digital modes have simply "squeezed in the crocks" between already
established modes of operation. Since the digital modes have
become established they have expanded gradually, a little at a
time, primarily into space occupied by c.w. operation. Frequencies
near the edges of digital mode operation continue to be shared by
both digital and non-digital modes.
Outside of the U.S., depending on the ITU region and the rules
adopted by various administrations, digital operation for any given
mode may not align with practice in this country and it does not
seem possible to establish a sub-band plan that could be
universally acceptable. It is simply inevitable that any band
segment in the h.f. spectrum is going to be shared among differing
modes of operation. This is not a new condition on the h.f. bands
and has been accommodated for decades.
Available Spectrum Space in the H. F. Bands
Since all current h.f. band space is actively occupied by one or
another mode of operation and since no current class of user is
willing to give up space for another, the Committee is operating
under the assumption that whatever rules are proposed there will
not be a sudden significant change in the way the bands are
currently used (at least this Committee is not prepared to make any
such recommendation!). The Committee believes that gradual changes
will continue to occur but that these changes will be due to
natural migration as a larger percentage of amateurs shift to
digital from other modes of operation and from one digital mode to
another.
The respondents to the survey strongly opposed the allocation of
sub-bands by rule. The Committee also believes that any attempt to
specify by rule sub-bands for a class of digital operation would
soon grow obsolete as patterns of operation change, more digital
modes are introduced, and more users shift to digital modes.
Instead, the Committee believes that the amateur community will
need to adjust itself to continued sharing of the spectrum by
various modes and that such sharing should be facilitated through
the publication by the ARRL of recommended sub-bands for the
various modes and that such recommendations should be revised from
time to time as operating patterns change.
The Committee, as a subsequent action, will propose a revised band
plan for consideration by the ARRL.
In any case, the h.f. spectrum is severely limited, especially for
digital mode operation, and modes of operation that improve
spectral efficiency must be strongly encouraged. The Committee
will undertake a study proposing, in a subsequent action, voluntary
technical standards which can be promoted among amateurs and
vendors to significantly improve our current frequency usage.
The State of the Art for Amateur HF Digital Operation
While the current rules allow considerable latitude in what digital
modes the amateur community uses, the actual practice is somewhat
limited. Current practice includes "RTTY", a non-error-protected
simplex mode, usually using the baudot code; "AMTOR", a partially
error-protected half-duplex mode using the baudot code; "packet",
an error-protected half-duplex mode using ascii code; and "PACTOR",
an error-protected half-duplex mode using ascii code. In addition,
a new DSP-based system has been demonstrated but is not yet
generally available called "Clover" that is an error-protected full
-duplex highly spectrum efficient mode.
As currently used all of the above modes require approximately 500
to 1000 Hz. of bandwidth per channel except packet which requires
2000 Hz. per channel. Effective use of that bandwidth is terms of
character throughput varies considerably as a function of the
protocol used and the channel conditions. Partly because of the
requirement for 2000 Hz. of space per channel and partly because of
the nature of the AX.25 protocol, the performance figures for
packet are the poorest per unit of bandwidth of any of the
currently used modes. RTTY and AMTOR are better, and PACTOR is
better still. Clover promises to exceed the throughput per unit of
bandwidth of any of the above modes.
Tolerance to poor channel conditions also varies among the modes
with packet having the poorest performance, RTTY next, AMTOR and
PACTOR being very much better.
Digital techniques for h.f. operation are improving and newer
technologies such as PACTOR and Clover promise significant near-
term improvements in spectrum utilization, throughput, and
performance under difficult h.f. radio conditions. The current
rules do not appear to have contemplated these new modes in the
h.f. portion of the spectrum and the Committee believes the rules
require a modest change to encourage these and other new more
effective digital modes and to promote operation in the narrowest
possible bandwidth.
Potential Abuse of Unattended Operation
A few respondents to the Survey expressed opposition to any form of
unattended operation because of possible illegal use of amateur
bands for unauthorized third-party traffic, commercial purposes, or
the support of illegal activities such as drug smuggling.
The Committee is not aware of any pattern of such abuse nor does
the Committee see any reason why illegal operation is not just as
likely to occur directly between two attended stations as any
other. The Committee did not consider this factor in making its
recommendations.
Competing Interests for HF Spectrum Space
The most difficult issue the Committee has had to deal with is the
demand for spectrum space from the many different classes of users.
Many of these users are sharing (somewhat unwillingly) the same
space and each would like the others to vacate to other locations.
The most critical frequency bands (at the moment!) are 20 and 40
meters.
On 20 meters the frequencies above 14,100 kHz. have been
traditionally used for DX voice and below 14,100 KHz. for c.w. and
data. With the advent of packet, and the STA authorizing
unattended packet operation, packet operations began above 14,100
Hz. and has gradually occupied the region of 14,100 to 14,125 Hz.
Due in large part to the fact that data is not allowed in this sub-
band in some countries, packet operation has also extended downward
into the band immediately below 14,100 attracting US operation in
this sub-band as well. Non-US voice operators have taken exception
to the use of the 14,100-14,125 space and RTTY operators have taken
exception to the use of the space below 14,100.
On the 40 meters packet operation began in the 7080-7100 Hz. region
where traditionally RTTY and AMTOR operators had been active. This
has forced the RTTY and AMTOR operations further down into the
dismay of c.w. operators. This picture is further complicated by
the fact that outside of region 2 data operation must be confined
below 7050 kHz.
The situation on other bands, especially below 21 mHz., though not
as critical as on 20 and 40 meters, have similar conflicts. The
informal 'sub-bands' used by the various modes are also somewhat
fluid as propagation conditions change and usage shifts from one
mode to another.
The Committee does not believe that any subdivision of the bands by
rule will best serve the amateur community in the long run. It
also seems unlikely that any subdivision of the band by mode will
work on a world wide basis because of the differences in the rules
between regions and between individual administrations. Any
subdivision of amateur bands by rule also imposes an unnecessary
potential enforcement burden on the FCC.
Amateur Operating Practices and Traditions
Except in a very few special situations it has long been the
tradition (and rule) that one amateur station must not willingly or
knowingly interfere with a contract already in progress regardless
of the mode of operation or the perceived importance of the
communications in progress. It has also been a long standing
tradition that no station or group of stations 'own' a frequency.
(Frequency 'ownership' has admittedly become a practice on certain
v.h.f. frequencies, but this practice has never been established on
the h.f. bands and the Committee strongly rejects the concept of
doing so now.)
On h.f. the use of sub-bands with various classes of operation
gravitating to specific locations is largely self regulating simply
by virtue of the fact that a station occupying a frequency is not
driven off the frequency by deliberate interference by a station
operating another mode. (There are always isolated exceptions to
this but it is not condoned in the rules or by the vast majority of
amateur operators.) As greater numbers of amateurs use a
particular mode that part of the band becomes recognized informally
as a mode-specific sub-band. There is always a significant overlap
in the sub-bands between modes - packet sharing with RTTY, RTTY
sharing with AMTOR, AMTOR sharing with c.w., and so on. The
greatest conflicts come where the overlapping modes have
significantly different bandwidth, i.e., AM vrs. ssb, packet vrs.
RTTY.
Types of Automatic Operation
Two types of automatic digital operation are under consideration
for use on the amateur h.f. bands. One is fully-automatic
operation where messages are passed between amateur stations
without any operator intervention and no operator may need be
present at either station.
The other is semi-automatic operation where messages are passed
between amateur stations with an operator initiating the contact
from one of the two stations.
Both fully- and semi-automatic operation is permissible today under
the rules provided there is a control operator present at both
stations. (Stations authorized under the STA may operate
unattended.)
Digital operation with one station functioning in a semi-automatic
mode has long been a practice dating back to the '60s.
Fully-Automatic Unattended Operation
The proposal to authorize fully-automatic unattended operation
represents distinct departure from past practices. A clear
majority of the respondents to the survey opposed any fully-
automatic operation on the amateur h.f. bands.
To authorize fully-automatic operation without restriction, as some
of the respondents to the survey advocate, would seriously
undermine the fiber of mutual cooperation that h.f. operation
requires. The Committee rejects such operation as undesirable on
its face.
It was also proposed to authorize fully-automatic operation with
restrictions, either to the frequencies allowed, to a few
privileged stations, or both. The committee saw no purpose in
limiting the frequency bands alone since the number of stations
that would attempt unattended operation would make the mode and
allocated frequency useless to everyone. Limiting the number of
participating stations was also rejected by the committee because
there was no conceivable way to equitably allocate the privilege to
specific stations nor was the committee willing to set aside any
portion of the band to stations with special privileges.
Fully-automatic operation, by it's very nature is mode-specific and
must 'own' the frequency it operates on an cannot be effectively
shared by other modes of operation.
To authorize fully-automatic operation on the necessary mode-
specific sub-bands raises serious problems. There are no likely
sub-bands that can be used on a world-wide basis or that will not
cause interference to other users under some circumstances.
The only mode of operation that is currently a prospect for fully-
automatic authorization is packet, based on the AX.25 protocol,
using 2 kHz. channel spacing. This mode delivers the poorest
performance with respect to spectrum utilization or survivability
under adverse propagation conditions of any the digital modes
currently in use. j The Committee does not believe that, if a
protected mode-specific sub-band is to be authorized, that it
should be a mode that is as inefficient in its resource utilization
as current packet practice represents. Such an authorization will
discourage the development and use of a more suitable mode.
Further, the Committee does not believe that these is any service
being provided by fully-automatic operation that is not also
available by other means without the associated problems of fully-
automatic operation. Nor does the Committee know of any reason why
packet operation cannot also be operated in semi-automatic mode,
thereby eliminating the need for a rule-mandated sub-band.
Semi-Automatic Unattended Operation
There are many reasons, however, why some form of automatic digital
operation is desirable. It permits amateurs to exchange
communications when there is a time difference between the
operating times available to the two amateurs, and it permits the
quick exchange of messages rather than taking air time with long
calls and keyboard-to-keyboard operation. (This not a suggestion
by the Committee that keyboard-to-keyboard is undesirable but
simply that there are many cases where moving messages at machine
speeds is more spectrum efficient and makes more frequency time
available to direct keyboard operation.)
It is very evident that some form of automatic operation is highly
desirable when handling NTS and personal messages between amateurs
through intermediate stations. This capability forms the very
heart of the amateur community's preparedness for emergency
service. Respondents to the survey favored semi-automatic
unattended operation over those opposed by a two-to-one ratio.
The Committee does recognize that there is some potential for
interference using a semi-automatic unattended mode even as there
is such potential in purely manual modes. However, so long as
there is a control operator present at one end of the link,
monitoring the progress of an exchange, such interference can be
held to a minimum. The benefits of semi-automatic operation
outweigh the risk of inadvertent interference.
The Committee believes that in view of the long successful history
of semi-automatic operation that authorizing unattended semi-
automatic operation is in the best interests of the amateur
community.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Unattended fully-automatic operation of amateur digital
stations should not be authorized below 30 mHz.
II. The FCC rules should be amended to allow unattended semi-
automatic operation of digital stations on any frequency on
which digital modes are authorized. Unattended semi-automatic
stations may not initiate a contact, either with another
station or via an undirected broadcast. An operator
initiating a contact with an unattended station must first
ascertain that no interference will be caused to existing
communications, and must monitor the progress of
communications. If it becomes evident that the communications
with an unattended semi-automatic station is interfering with
other amateur communications then the link with the semi-
automatic station must be discontinued. An unattended semi-
automatic station must be equipped with a time-out timer to
insure that no signal is transmitted longer than five minutes
in the event of the malfunction of control equipment or the
loss of contact with the initiating station. Suggested
wording for such an amendment is included in the appendix.
III. The FCC rules should be amended to allow the use of modem-
dependent codes for the purpose of efficient data compression
and error control on h.f. radio channels. The bandwidth of
such signals should be restricted to 500 Hz, below 28 mHz, and
2000 Hz. between 28.0 and 28.3 mHz The appendix to this
report suggests specific wording for the recommended rule
change. A station using a modem-dependent code must still
comply with 96.119 Station Identification.
IV. The League should publish a comprehensive tutorial-style
operator's guide for h.f. digital operations clearly defining
acceptable operating practices. Such a manual would delineate
currently used informal sub-bands for the various modes and
styles of operation, and the good operating practices that are
required for effective mutual cooperation and coexistence.
This Committee will make specific recommendations for the
content of this guide.
V. The League should publish technical standards or guidelines
for the characteristics of signals generated by digital mode
stations for the purpose of achieving the best possible use of
the h.f. spectrum. QST should be used as a forum to educate
that amateur community on the benefits and means of achieving
acceptable signal quality and should review the technical
characteristics of digital mode products with respect to
published standards. This Committee will make specific
recommendations for these technical standards.
APPENDIX A
The following is suggested wording for an addition to Part 97
authorizing unattended semi-automatic digital mode operation.
97.3 Definitions
( ) Unattended Digital Station - A station in the amateur
service using an RTTY or data emission that is operated
without a control operator present.
97.216 Unattended Digital Station
(a) Any amateur station licensed to a holder of a General,
Advanced or Amateur Extra Class operation license may be an
unattended digital station.
(b) An unattended digital station may operate on any
frequency below 30 mHz. that is authorized for RTTY or data
emission for the class of operator license held.
(c) An unattended digital station may only use those RTTY or
data emissions authorized by 97.305 and 97.307.
(d) No unattended digital station may initiate a contact with
another station or may broadcast any undirected signal.
(e) The transmitter of an unattended digital station must be
equipped with a time-out timer that will insure that no signal
is transmitted for longer than five minutes in the event of
the malfunction of control equipment or loss of contact with
the initiating station.
(f) Any amateur operator initiating contact with an
unattended digital station must first ascertain that no
interference will be caused to existing communications, must
be present for the duration of the contact, and must
discontinue the contact if it becomes evident that
communications with the unattended digital station is
interfering with other amateur communications.
APPENDIX B
To encourage improvements in digital mode communications and
especially to improved spectrum utilization on amateur h.f. bands
Part 97, 97.307 (f) (3) and 97.307 (f) (4), should read as follows:
(3) A RTTY or data emission using a specified code listed in
97.309 (a) of this Part may be transmitted. The symbol rate
must not exceed 300 baud, and for frequency-shift keying, the
frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 300 Hz.
A RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code
under the limitations listed in 97.309 (b) of the Part also
may be transmitted. If an unspecified digital code is
transmitted the authorized bandwidth is 500 Hz.
(4) A RTTY or data emission using a specified code listed in
97.309 (a) of this Part may be transmitted. The symbol rate
must not exceed 1200 baud, and for frequency-shift keying, the
frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz.
A RTTY or date emission using an unspecified digital code
under the limitations listed in 97.309 (b) of the Part also
may be transmitted. If an unspecified digital code is
transmitted the authorized bandwidth is 2 kHz.
---------------------
After this appeared, telephones started ringing and the packet and Usenet
channels became very busy, trying to find out what was happening and
trying to influence the ARRL Board in advance of their July 17th meeting.
Here are some samples:
Luck Hurder, KY1T at ARRL HQ said, in defense of questions about the
Committee acting in secrecy:
The truth is that the list of unattended digital STA folks has
been available for the asking since day one. All a person need
do was ask. And it's still available to the public on the ARRL
BBS as a downloadable file.
Also untrue is the notion that we've not spouted forth with regard
to what we've learned from the STA. In fact we put out an ARRL/W1AW
bulletin about it just this past week.
We even went so far as to ask the STA participants (and all other
interested amateurs) for their opinions on how we should proceed
with our request to the FCC for rulemaking. Over 500 people
responded. Not what you'd call a 'secret' guys! Here's the
result of the digital committee's efforts on this matter:
To which Hank, W0RLI responded:
And we responded to the earlier poll ... the response from the
STA participants was to allow fully automatic operation, since
there had been near zero problems with it.
Many of us have not YET responded to the recent "popularity
contest" poll that appeared in a recent QST - in my case, since
I've not yet had a chance to READ that QST.
Hank then commented on the ARRL Bulletin #058 which said:
"A clear majority of survey respondents opposed fully
automatic, unattended operation on HF. However, by a
ratio of two to one, respondents endorsed semi-automatic
operation, where there is a control operator present at
one end of the circuit."
Who responded? What is the breakdown of people with actual
serious HF packet operation? What did they cite as reasons
for not allowing automatic unattended operation?
Have the incidents cited (if any) been independently verified?
Bulletin 58 continues by saying:
"The Digital Committee recommendations are consistent with
the survey results. The Committee is recommending that
FCC rules be proposed to permit semi-automatic digital
operation below 30 MHz, but not to permit fully-automatic
operation. Neither type of operation is presently
permitted, except under a special temporary authorization
granted to ARRL that will expire next January. The
recommendation includes language to protect other amateur
operations from interference in the event of a malfunction
of the unattended station."
But what do the survey results mean? We have no information
that indicates the survey did indeed sample the information
it was expected to sample.
The digital committee did not poll the STA holders.
Since the STA holders are the only hams with experience in
automatic unattended HF operation, this seems a VERY serious
oversight.
Note that this recommendation, if implemented,
will shut down HF forwarding, and will shut down HF gateways.
The original intent of the STA was to discover if it was feasible
to have automatic unattended HF operation. The results of the
operations under the STA have shown that it is feasible.
The previous survey OF THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE STA showed that there
were no problems.
I strongly recommend that the digital committee do it's homework.
A survey in a single ham magazine is not likely to produce the
information the committee needs to make a good decision.
And let's publish some actual information:
Who's part of the STA? Are they on air?
Have they been on air for the duration of the STA?
What have their experiences been while operatin under the STA?
The "secrecy" that folks are concerned about revolves around the
fact that the information on WHO is in the STA, and WHAT has happened
with the STA has not yet been made widely available. For example,
it might make sense to publish the list of stations involved in the STA
in QST. There WAS one packet BBS bulletin listing the original stations
(sent around by W2JUP). There has been NO information about the results
of the operation of the HF STA stations.
With respect to that operation: I know of only ONE incident that might
have caused unexpected QRM, etc. Cannot remember exactly when it
occured (perhaps 1985?). Hardware failure caused one of the STA stations
to go key down. The operator was notified within one hour (at his place
of work), and he corrected the problem. He lost his L4 linear though ...
Is there other evidence that unattended automatic operation has caused
problems? Don't bother to respond with "It *COULD* do ....". The STA
has been in existance for a long time now, anything that "could" happen
has had it's chance to happen, and didn't.
73, Hank W0RLI
And Carl, WA0CQG said
Jay, WS7I said, quote "The ARRL Digital Committee has done a great job
and put forth a recommendation that deserves wide support. It has done
the study that the STA never did and the conclusion that it reached
should be supportable by the Amateur Community."
Whether it deserves widespread support is dependent on what it says. We'll
know that when we see it, won't we? Whereis it available? I haven't seen
it on packet nor here.
The only request that the STA participant have had to provide info to
ARRL that I am aware of was in November 1987 when Paul Rinaldo, W4RI,
sent a letter requesting specific details as to amounts, types of traf
fic handled and general operational questions. Those details were in
cluded in a letter on January 5, 1989 from Mr. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ, to Mr.
Ralph Haller, Chief, Private Radio Bureau, FCC, requesting a further
extension of the STA term. It stated that the lessons learned are:
"a. The system works, moves traffic and, with careful frequency selection,
can provide a public service without undue interference to other amateur
activities.
b. Network management and control are necessary.
c. Accountability for traffic must be with the station introducing it
into the network; accountability at relay points is not practical.
d. Packet is not compatible with other modes and needs separate fre
quencies; carrier sense is not adequate to protect against interfer
ing with other modes on HF owing to transmission impairments, hidden
station effects, etc.
e. Frequency stability needs to be on the order of 10 Hz.
f. Protocols need improvement, and new capabilities are needed.
g. Modems need improvement.
h. Watchdog timer (to disable the transmitter automatically in the
event of a malfunction) are essential.
i. Stations need to change frequenciesin accordance with propagation
conditions to improve efficiency, reduce retries, and free up frequencies
for other users.
j. While a 200-watt power output has proven adequate for many domestic
paths, there is no justification for a blanket 200-watt limitation."
So, thats the kind of stuff learned during the STA, as reported to FCC by
ARRL. Stuff learned from real life experiences.
WA0CQG continues his response to WS7I who had said: "... The survey of the
ARRL membership and the various input was a terrific idea. Many have
already called their ARRL director and urged support. More should do so."
A terrific idea if you want to form government regulatory policies from
public opinion. I always understood that the League's role was to
further technical excellence. Sometimes that is in contrary to the
first blush of public opinion. What the FCC is asking for is, based on
our actual STA experience can we operate the service without interfering
with each other? They didn't ask our opinion!
This assumes you have been fortunate enough to find a copy to read. I think
time is too short before the BOD meeting to get wide-spread distribution of
the document and understand it. Therefore, I have urged our local Director,
Howard Mark (W0OZC) to either vote to table it or refer it back to the
committee for inclusion of inputs from the STA participants.
73, Carl WA0CQG
Quoting from comments by NO8M:
The prohibition of automatic HF forwarding will result in a drastic and
damaging affect on the amateur radio networks that now exist. This is
exactly what the ARRL Digital Committee is proposing. The text of their
recommendation is circulating on other networks and on many PBBSs as a
separate message. It is also available on the Cleveland Hamnet BBS,
216-942-6382.
There is little doubt that the HF network as we now know it will col
lapse. Few, if any HF Sysops now operating will participate after the
banning of automatic forwarding. (Ask one.) Hence, the same network
that now relays the far majority of health and welfare, NTS and personal
mail will close.
At this same time, the possibility of future enhancements and experimen
tation with a data network on all but the local scale will become so
limited that the potential for advancement will be all but lost.
Years of a highly successful STA operation are being ignored.
Advancements that have come from this experimentation such as Clover and
Pactor are being ignored. Massive amounts of traffic handled during
emergencies is being ignored.
Instead, we are treated to page after page of suggestions based not on
these many successes but on speculation and suspicion of problems that
do not exist. Situations that have not occurred. Pages after page of
pretend that mocks the reality so easily shown by the networks that are
real, that exist, that prove that it works.
For years upon years, the staff of Newington has chosen to ignore and
belittle the advances that have been made. Caught once in this activi
ty, the prior Digital Committee was abandoned as an embarrassment. In its
place were put tokens designed to meet a demand. The FCC, weary of
waiting, publicly scorned the ARRL with the announcement that they best
get off their derrieres and move to propose rules for the termination of
the STA. To this end they begin their fight to build a case able to
ignore the fantastic dedication and labor easily shown by today's net
works.
Should this event occur it will be years before the damage can be un
done. This trend will only end and reverse if the Directors see the
folly this Committee (and the staff at Newington who chose them) is
perpetrating.
Please, contact your Division Director and request that the recommenda
tions of the Digital Committee be abandoned. In mid-July they will have
a meeting in order to take action on this matter. Your Director's
information is available inside the cover of QST. Also please contact
your Section Manager. Your Section Manager has an ear to your area and
a voice in Newington.
73, Steve, NO8M @ NO8M.#NEOH.OH.USA.NA
And I circulated this long diatribe on July 11th:
The ARRL Digital Committee has filed a report to be voted on by the
ARRL Directors in their meeting 7/17 concerning the STA which permits
automatic, unattended HF digital operations. This STA has been hanging
around for a number of years as an un-reconciled thorn in everyone's
side.
This represents some of my personal comments on the proposal by the
ARRL Committee on Amateur Radio Digital Communications date June 13th.
I find the Committee's report to be interesting. I agree with part of
it. I find parts of it suffering from technical errors. I find a number
of places where assertive "god's truth" statements are made based on
what I consider to be inadequate/incomplete/questionable evidence and/or
circular logic.
The report conveys an aura which is in essence "let's flog packet" which
I think is unfortunate and tends to put some of the community immediately
on the defensive. My personal belief is that the desirable systems for
the future are different from any of the current techniques, and will
draw on the good/bad experience of each. Regarding new techniques, I
am pleased to see Clover and Pactor represented; too bad several of the
other new/proposed techniques were ignored.
I find each of the techniques to be discussed as a "black-box" based on
perceived performance, with lots of apples vs. oranges comparisons. By way
of example, the strengths/deficiencies of a particular class of modem
technology are not separated from issues of error correction, link-level
data protocols, high-level messaging/networking protocols or number of
people sharing a given frequency.
From the packet standpoint, it is unclear whether any distinction is
made between "open" operation (BBSs open to all users) and "closed"
(regulated, limited membership) dedicated networks.
The survey "vote" seems to have been based on counts of individual
responses. This may give an incomplete picture. By this scheme, the
"closed" dedicated HF networks (both packet and amtor) get only one
"vote" per station when in point of fact, they handle messages from many
people. I also note that, because of the way in which the survey was
announced and advertised (heavily promoted in the RTTY Journal, but with
no specific requests to the HF Net Managers to submit statistics), many
of the sysops of the "closed" network stations didn't respond with
enough information.
Let me note my personal credentials to comment on these various points.
First, I have been an active member of the present STA since the begin
ning. I operate two "dedicated" "closed" HF Packet ports (14109 and
21097). My HF + VHF/UHF system acts only as a network mail forwarding
node and has no direct users.
The W3IWI mail switch handles 8000-12000 messages per month. Although
NTS activity has decreased recently, my system has "made BPL" more than
20 times. My two HF ports typically handle 25-100,000 bytes of user-
generated packet mail each day.
I have been active in designing and building the amateur digital satellites
to provide additional channel capacity to the world-wide network. I have
been involved in the development and design of several of the pieces of
hardware in common usage including the TNC1, TNC2 and 1200 baud PSK modem.
I have been involved in developing DSP-based techniques for improving link-
level performance. I have done research in quantifying the effects of multi-
path on HF digital links and in developing the digital protocols.
Now to some specific points concerning the committee report:
1. The meeting was held June 13th. It was July 8th before I was able
to get a copy for comment, and it is only a week to get comments to the
ARRL BoD. I wonder why the document was kept "secret" until it is
(almost) to late to lobby the Directors? My local Director (W3ABC) had
also not seen a copy and phoned me today asking what I knew about it.
Along similar lines, I wonder who in the community the committee discussed
the issues with? Among the folks I know operating HF packet systems under
the current STA, and among the folks who are currently writing code to
make improvements to the present system, and among the folks who are
trying to improve modem technology, no one was contacted. I think some
grievous errors and misconceptions could have been corrected if only people
had asked!
2. Spectrum usage: In the report the committee states
> In any case, the h.f. spectrum is severely limited, especially for
> digital mode operation, and modes of operation that improve
> spectral efficiency must be strongly encouraged. The Committee
> will undertake a study proposing, in a subsequent action, voluntary
> technical standards which can be promoted among amateurs and
> vendors to significantly improve our current frequency usage.
Good, I'm glad to see that philosophical statement. Actually efficiency
needs to also be measured in a second domain -- time. Any network needs
to be judged on the basis of objective criteria like bits/day/kHz, not
just occupied kHz. The committee then goes on to state:
> The State of the Art for Amateur HF Digital Operation
>
> While the current rules allow considerable latitude in what digital
> modes the amateur community uses, the actual practice is somewhat
> limited. Current practice includes "RTTY", a non-error-protected
> simplex mode, usually using the baudot code; "AMTOR", a partially
> error-protected half-duplex mode using the baudot code; "packet",
> an error-protected half-duplex mode using ascii code; and "PACTOR",
> an error-protected half-duplex mode using ascii code. In addition,
> a new DSP-based system has been demonstrated but is not yet
> generally available called "Clover" that is an error-protected full
> -duplex highly spectrum efficient mode.
I wish to note that "CLOVER" is not the only "DSP-Based" technology
currently being developed. I also note that Clover is the only "mode"
listed (but not the only one under development) where new modem technology
is being developed. The other techniques cited use nearly identical FSK
implementations.
> As currently used all of the above modes require approximately 500
> to 1000 Hz. of bandwidth per channel except packet which requires
^^^^^^^^
> 2000 Hz. per channel. Effective use of that bandwidth is terms of
> character throughput varies considerably as a function of the
> protocol used and the channel conditions. Partly because of the
> requirement for 2000 Hz. of space per channel and partly because of
^^^^^^^^^^^
> the nature of the AX.25 protocol, the performance figures for
> packet are the poorest per unit of bandwidth of any of the
> currently used modes.
I wonder what kind of strange weed the authors were smoking when they
decided that packet REQUIRES 2000 Hz of bandwidth. The currently used
channels on HF happen to be spaced 2000 Hz, but that was simply done
for convenience. With 300 baud data superimposed on a 200 kHz shift,
the REQUIRED bandwidth is about 500 Hz. Even given mortal receiver
and modem filters, 1 kHz channel spacing would be adequate. With high
performance receivers and a DSP modem (TS950, DSP2232) running the current
BELL 103A standards, I have demonstrated that 750 Hz spacing is more than
adequate. [In point of fact, the reason that packet uses 103A standards
today is that back circa 1982 Bob Bruninga (WB4APR) picked up some surplus
103A modem boards at the Gaithersburg hamfest, and then N7CL+WA7GXD+W3IWI
figured out how to tweak the XR2211 chip in the TNC1/2 to work compatibly.]
3. Channel Throughput. The Committee chose to use make this statement:
> .... RTTY and AMTOR are better, and PACTOR is
> better still. Clover promises to exceed the throughput per unit of
> bandwidth of any of the above modes.
I would like to see the factual justification for justifying the statement
about packet. One major difference between the techniques that must be
normalized to make such definitive claims is that the packet channels
have several users on a frequency at a given time. Is the claim that ONE
STATION's throughput is poorest, or is that the total channel throughput,
considering frequency re-use is poorest?
In the case of packet, are they referring to the "free-for-all" packet
channels wherein the BBSs operate "open" or to the "closed" networks which
limit membership in an attempt to minimize congestion, or to both?
This set of sweeping statements, made to sound authoritative but lacking
factual support are PRECISELY the type of apples vs. oranges rhetoric
that some people have used to try to incite packet vs. rtty vs. amtor "wars".
These rhetorical statements sweep under the rug that the performance
differences arise because of several factors.
The committee report then states:
> Tolerance to poor channel conditions also varies among the modes
> with packet having the poorest performance, RTTY next, AMTOR and
> PACTOR being very much better.
Again, the committee did not state the opinion on which these "facts"
are based!
4. Logic Flaws!
Why are these statements flawed? First, the radio side of the HF channels
cannot be simply modeled. Gaussian noise is the least of the problems. QRM
and QRN must be considered. Even more severe are effects of multipath.
Papers at the ARRL Networking Conferences and in QEX by VE3JF, KB1JY and
W3IWI as well as in the professional literature have demonstrated that on
links well below the MUF, multipath causes significant intersymbol distor-
tion at data rates about about 75 baud (symbol times shorter than about 15
msec). On "long-path" links near the MUF, rates well above 300 baud can be
supported. The packet world has been tarred and feathered about performance
when in fact the modem/data rate chosen for a the links were in error.
I've had trouble copying 110 baud RTTY from W1AW on 80M. That is the
fault of RTTY -- it's the attempt to use symbols that are too short to
propagate thru the ionosphere. Proper application of improved adaptive
modem technology (like Clover, like the idea I presented at the 7th Network-
ing Conference, and like the ideas proposed by VE3JF and N4HY) will benefit
all the techniques.
Modems and the ionosphere are but one link-level issue. A second concerns
the lowest level protocols. Clearly the error correction that AMTOR uses
is a major key to its good demonstrated performance. In essence AMTOR
is packet-like with a frame length < 20 bits. HF packet uses frames
500-1000 bits long with only error detection; it only works when bit
error rates are below 1x10e-3 -- a rather stringent requirement for
marginal HF paths. Pactor and Clover makes an effort to bridge this gap,
as do other link-level protocols proposed and being developed by N4HY, VE3JF
and W3IWI.
At a higher level, another protocol issue which makes the "my technique
is better than yours" arguments difficult is the time domain. RTTY and
AMTOR tend to require that only one link (i.e. QSO) be in progress on
a frequency at a given time. Packet (and Pactor) allow for time-domain
channel sharing. This is an advantage when the different sessions
occupying a given frequency can hear each other. When they can't, the
"hidden terminal" problem occurs and everyone suffers when the different
users step on each other. The regulated, established HF nets attempt to
deal with this by limiting membership and enforcing time slotting. Protocol
enhancements involving backoff timers, prioritized "acks", etc have been
proposed and tested, but more development is still required.
At still a higher protocol level, the present protocols all have weaknesses.
The current use of connected-mode AX.25 is flawed. NK6K, K8KA, KA9Q and
W3IWI have all proposed datagram-based "broadcast" protocols (much like
those used in the NK6L/K8KA PACSAT protocols) on HF.
I have stressed these future developments/augmentations to make a point.
The committee proposal tries to cast the present system in concrete. It
is flawed in its simplistic "automatic vs. semi-automatic" distinction.
As a case in point -- I can envision adaptive protocols that (like current
AMTOR) "probe" a number of frequencies trying to find a path. Once a
path is found, some information is transmitted, but not all of it makes
it thru. Several hours later, the "probe" finds a new path on a new band
and some more data is transferred. Depending on the amount of information,
this might take a whole day. The data (message) has been fragmented and
can only be reassembled after it is received in its entirety. This seems,
to me, to be an exciting technical development that only amateurs could
do. But, unless the person at the manually-operated end of the semi-
automated link is willing to sit at the rig for 24 hours, it REQUIRES
automated stations. Why should we push the world (FCC, IARU, etc) to
adopt "rules" which tie our hands?
The committee report sort-of agrees with my statements about the future
trends:
> Digital techniques for h.f. operation are improving and newer
> technologies such as PACTOR and Clover promise significant near-
> term improvements in spectrum utilization, throughput, and
> performance under difficult h.f. radio conditions. The current
> rules do not appear to have contemplated these new modes in the
> h.f. portion of the spectrum and the Committee believes the rules
> require a modest change to encourage these and other new more
> effective digital modes and to promote operation in the narrowest
> possible bandwidth.
In the last sentence, I would again stress that bandwidth per se is
only part of the issue. The number of users sharing x kHz of spectrum
and the number of bytes they can send per minute (or hour or day) also
need to be part of the criteria.
5. Interference: Throughout the report (I won't quote the specific
sections) there is a lot of discussion about interference. Let us consider
for the moment that digital techniques are intrinsically channelized.
Packet operation assumes that there will be interference from other
users on the channel. The hardware and software detect the other signals,
and when problems occur, the user automatically slows down to share
the channel. AMTOR has developed frequency hopping as a way to automatically
cope with channel congestion. While malicious interference is morally and
socially unacceptable, channel sharing (in time and/or frequency) is a
proven way to cope with the problem. Problems develop only when the modes
are incompatible and channel "assignments" are violated.
6. What the committee proposes and its implications. Again I quote:
> Fully-Automatic Unattended Operation
>
> The proposal to authorize fully-automatic unattended operation
> represents distinct departure from past practices. A clear
> majority of the respondents to the survey opposed any fully-
> automatic operation on the amateur h.f. bands.
How long is the integration time for the words "past practices"?
Certainly fully automated unattended packet operations have been
going on for at least 8 years! And I suspect that some of the
automated AMTOR systems now on the air are also running the same way.
The Committee's recommendations seem to be based on numerical replies.
I doubt that the average packet user bothered to "vote" because the
survey was not addressed to him/her. But the <<implications>> of this
action will have a marked effect on them.
In point of fact, a large fraction of the long-haul packet messaging
outside a user's local area is carried on HF by automatic, unattended
HF packet stations. Yes, some fraction is now being handled by the
limited amateur satellite resources the community has built over the
past few years; some fraction is handled by the (semi-)automatic AMTOR
stations; and some fraction is handled on non-amateur (i.e. wire) links
bypassing amateur radio completely.
> To authorize fully-automatic operation without restriction, as some
> of the respondents to the survey advocate, would seriously
> undermine the fiber of mutual cooperation that h.f. operation
> requires. The Committee rejects such operation as undesirable on
> its face.
>
> It was also proposed to authorize fully-automatic operation with
> restrictions, either to the frequencies allowed, to a few
> privileged stations, or both. The committee saw no purpose in
> limiting the frequency bands alone since the number of stations
> that would attempt unattended operation would make the mode and
> allocated frequency useless to everyone. Limiting the number of
> participating stations was also rejected by the committee because
> there was no conceivable way to equitably allocate the privilege to
> specific stations nor was the committee willing to set aside any
> portion of the band to stations with special privileges.
The Implications:
I'll speak for myself and ask the other operators on the HF networks to
comment on their own views. W3IWI now handles thousands of user messages
each month on HF under the aegis of the STA, operating automatically
and unattended under the current STA. My professional commitments require
me to be away from home quite a bit. When I am away I leave instructions
on how to kill the radio if a <<technical>> malfunction occurs, but the
messages keep being sent automatically. Recently I was in DL/UA/OH/LA/SM
for 3 weeks. Several thousand messages passed thru the HF port here. I
even sent mail from UA3/W3IWI back home thru the system.
If the Committee's recommendations are adopted, or if some alternative
to the present STA is not found, I will be forced to go QRT. I simply
cannot operate in the ill-defined "semi-automatic" (which I liken to
being half-pregnant or having half a pair of pliers!) mode legally.
I hope that someone else will step up to the task of providing the
service I have prided myself in for the past 6 years.
In anticipation of comments like mine, the committee states:
> Further, the Committee does not believe that these is any service
> being provided by fully-automatic operation that is not also
> available by other means without the associated problems of fully-
> automatic operation. Nor does the Committee know of any reason why
> packet operation cannot also be operated in semi-automatic mode,
> thereby eliminating the need for a rule-mandated sub-band.
I am unconvinced. Who is correct? If you have any comments on these
ideas I urge you to contact your ARRL Director immediately so that he can
cast an informed vote during the ARRL BOD meeting next week (7/17).
73 de Tom, W3IWI
-----------------
Well, the ARRL Board met. Here are extracts of the relevant portions of
their minutes:
32) Comstock, as Chairman, presented the report of the ARRL
Committee on Amateur Radio Digital Communications. The committee
reviewed the role of digital communications in emergencies, the "state
of the art" for digital modes and their impact on HF spectrum use and
the responses from the digital survey conducted by QST and the RTTY
Journal. The committee then examined at length all of the issues raised
in connection with the operation of unattended amateur HF digital
stations.
33) It was moved by Comstock, seconded by Heyn, that the General
Counsel, with the assistance of the Exec VP and the staff, is authorized
to prepare a draft Petition for FCC Rulemaking to permit the operation
of a new category of amateur station, "unattended digital station," on
RTTY/data frequencies below 30 MHz. Only amateur stations under the
active control of a control operator would be permitted to communicate
with unattended digital stations; unattended digital stations would not
be permitted to engage in one-way communications; and appropriate
safeguards would be required to prevent unattended digital stations from
causing harmful interference to other amateur stations. The draft is to
be circulated to the Executive Committee for review and final approval
before filing. Further, the Digital Committee is requested to continue
its study of the issue of unattended digital operation, with the
objective of developing future recommendations for increased flexibility
of operation of this class of station.
It was then moved by Quiat, seconded by Kanode, to strike the text
and substitute the following:
That the ARRL petition the FCC for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
to provide for: (1) Fully unattended HF digital BBS operations under 47
CFR Part 97, subject to the following: (a) Data control--at the point of
origination, all bulletins would be held for SysOps' review to screen
out Part 97 violations, such as those having commercial or other
inappropriate or unlawful textual content. (b) Equipment Control--all
automatic HF BBS operators will include hardware, such as a telephone
link or UHF/VHF link to shut down the HF port in case of awareness of,
or reported, hardware malfunction. Additionally, locked-key sensors and
over-temperature sensors shall be installed to shut down the HF port if
the above or other prohibited conditions are detected. (2) Digital
transmission rates up to 1200 bauds shall be allowed of HF amateur bands
from 3-30 MHz. (3) Bandplanning within a maximum of 30 kHz of any
amateur band to allow safe bandwidth margins for 1200-baud transmission
will be implemented by agreement and understanding within the Amateur
Radio community.
After discussion, however, the motion to amend was LOST. Whereupon,
the question being on Comstock's motion, the same was ADOPTED. Turnbull,
Burden, McConnell and Grauer requested to be recorded as voting no.
I talked with Director Turnbull (W3ABC) after the meeting. He told me that
Quait's motion was very confused and was defeated by a vote of 14-1. I
gather that many of the directors didn't understand the issues. He reported
that no other director offered an alternative to Comstock's motion and that
it was passed. Turnbull further stated:
... my position has been consistent for the past 4 years.
There are two issues involved.
FIRST - The need for a spectrum management policy (call it band
planning, if you wish) that will be reviewed periodically and
avoid some of the perceived chaos and/or incompatabilities.
SECOND - The need for automatic efficient information handling
systems where the content is the responsibility of the
originator.
Both items should be determined not only on the basis of current
and future technnical requirements developed by those
knowledgable, but also from the responsible inputs of both the
user and provider communities.
73/Hugh W3ABC
So, the SKIPNET community is left in limbo. As of December the present STA
will expire. Who knows what the FCC will decide. Most of the present STA
stations (both packet and AMTOR) expect to shut down because they are
unable to operate in the "half-pregnant" semi-automatic mode. Unless the
problem is solved, our only channel for trans- and inter-continental
message handling will be via the satellites, or else by routing everything
thru Canada.
To show the users what they are in for, the Colorado SYSOPS are staging a
two-day hiatus, as seen in these comments from W0LJF:
The following is one of many bulletins sent to the BBS sysop's in
Colorado defining our short-term plan to open the eyes of the local users
to our plight. Next weekend [Aug 1/2], the BBS stations are going to shut
down completely for 2 days. We are hoping that this will shock the users
into appropriate action. In all actuality, we'll probably be called dirty
names and accused of playing GOD; but we have to try SOMETHING drastic, as
time is short.
I am not trying to influence you to do the same in your states, but simply
to let you know ONE of the things that CO is doing to further our cause.
..73..Ed W0LJF..
Bulletin to SYSOP @ COBBS follows:
I just had a long talk with W0GVT on the tele. He suggests, and quite
properly so, that AFTER the weekend blackout (I may go longer on the local
blockout) that we send a bulletin to ALL users that this is what can be
expected after December 31, 1992 UNLESS we get the ARRL Digital Committee,
The ARRL proper and the FCC to change their course of action. He says to
also provide names, addresses for comments to the proper parties.
I concur....good idea. We need to get the addresses of these folks. Do
any of you have this information? I would send a similiar bulletin to the
the users right now, but they have no incentive at the present to petition
these folks. Once they actually see that their hobby is in jeopardy, "they
will see with open eyes", to loosely quote a verse from the Bible.
One thing that everyone in the BBS biz should remember is that when the
STA expires, that's it. There is NO unattended autoforwarding UNLESS
the FCC modifies part 97. No matter what the ARRL recommends, we need
to influence the FCC to see it our way. I have no idea how much the under-
staffed FCC actually listens to the ARRL.
Comments, please.
Time to mow the lawn if it's dry enough.
73..Ed W0LJF@W0LJF.#NECO.CO.USA.NOAM..
Wynne, W0IUQ in Iowa sent me a note recommending:
I do not think a slow-down or stoppage of service is a good idea,
since it can easily backfire. In some areas, like Iowa, where the service
is already pretty poor, it may go unnoticed and that could be used as
evidence that the system isn't working and isn`t needed. Besides, it
is negative and smacks of a lack of cooperation, like labor strikes aimed
at the general public.
Instead, I think we should take positive action, and some possibilities
are the following:
(1) The STA group could respond directly to the FCC and deliver the
results of the study promised by the ARRL, proving that unattended
operations are feasible and do not cause interference.
(2) A group could separately petition the FCC for the unattended
operations we want, and it would be best if that could be done
before the ARRL gets theirs in.
(3) Petitions could be circulated at hamfests and club meetings.
(4) An article on this could be written for QST (which they may or may
not publish).
(5) Get lots of people talking about this on packet. (I have seen only
a few, poorly-thought-out bulletins, and that surprises me.)
(6) Encourage letters to the ARRL and/or the FCC.
(7) Appeal at a personal level to the FCC. (Do you know anyone there?)
(8) Apply pressure to the Board of Directors, as you suggested, citing
their votes on this issue.
It is also important to work together and coordinate our efforts. If I can
do anything, please let me know.
73. Wynne.
If and when the ARRL files with the FCC, then we will have the opportunity
to comment. Here are some remaks from AD8I:
After watching the disgraceful charade orchestrated by the ARRL power
structure, the packed Digital Committee and the back room dealing by the
Board of Directors, I have decided to let each of you know where I stand
in the 'automatic operation' debate and let you know what I intend to
do.
I will terminate *ALL* packet operations at 23:59z 31 December 1992
unless the FCC has acted to allow full automatic operation for *ALL*
classes of digital stations. I will resume VHF only operation of
the GLOBAL WP SERVER after 30 days.
If the ARRL presents a proposal to the FCC that discriminates against
ANY class of automatic digital operations, I will file a very strongly
worded set of comments in opposition. Those comments will be based on
our collective experince under the STA. They will state that there is
no technical justification to prohibit fully automatic operation of
digital stations below 50 MHZ. They will state that there is no valid
reason to permit only semi-automatic operation. Finally, they will
recommend the COMPLETE PROHIBITION OF ANY AMATEUR OPERATION IN WHICH
THERE IS NO CONTROL OPERATOR PHYSICALLY PRESENT AT THE LICENSED CONTROL
POINT.
As far as I am concerned, the ARRL elite can not have it both ways,
either automatic operation is OK for everybody or it is not right for
anybody. It is time to make a stand ... time to point expose the
emperor's new clothes for what they really are!
... Joe Subich, AD8I
The other approach is to make a preemptive strike and directly petition
the FCC for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking befroe the ARRL does. This
could be done by concerned individuals, or it could be done by TAPR as the
premier packet radio organization. If the TAPR membership feels strongly
about this issue, let us know ASAP.
Thanks to all who have made comments in the past month. Sorry I couldn't
include them all. Much of the material included in this report was taken
verbatum from the inputs, so don't blame me for any errors in the quotes!
73, Tom