FWD: Re: [CW] An AM View of the World

[Galasso, Phil]

My comments inline:

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Tippett 

Dear Phil, et al:

        Let me summarize what I believe this issue is really about:

"1.  Narrowband and wideband modes are technically incompatible. This is the
technical basis for
mode segmentation which has been in place for all amateur HF bands, 
160 meters excluded, for as long as we have had wideband modes."

Agreed. And that's why we have bandplans. Why, though, do we need to ossify
those bandplans by force of government regulation? There is something
radically wrong with amateur radio regulation when even Communist states
(e.g., Cuba, China) decline to do this, yet the "free" U.S.A. insists on it.

"2.  Mode segmentation has worked very well on all HF amateur bands 
excluding 160 meters where it was never been implemented."  

I guess you have never tried to work DX on 40 meters nor have you ever been
frustrated by the de facto "American-free" zones on 20 and 15 meters. Since
foreign stations use voice transmission on the frequencies in question
(14.100-14.150 and 21.100-21.200 MHz) and Americans are forbidden to do so,
the frequencies go to waste in this country. Or should Americans be
relegated to second-class status on our bands because of outdated
regulations that fail to keep up with changes in operating practices? By the
way, several enforcement letters went out from the FCC against U.S. stations
that were attempting to work SSB DX on 40 meters by working split.

"If you
check the past 3 years of FCC enforcement actions, you will find 
the only enforcement action (3 letters) for intermodal interference 
was on 160.  The 160 experience is instructive because it demonstrates 
the problems inherent with voluntary bandplans."

Pure hogwash! Any intentional interference, regardless of emission mode, is
against the regulations and would still be if government-mandated subbanding
were removed. Far more problematic is contest operation, in which contesters
monopolize every available frequency, rendering the bands (except the WARC
bands, which, by VOLUNTARY BANDPLANS, are contest-free) totally useless for
any other kind of communication. The most obnoxious of these contests are
the ARRL Sweepstakes, CQWW, and CQ-WPX, with the ARRL and CQ 160 meter
contests being close behind. The only intermodal interference that I have
ever experienced on 160 meters occurred during contest weekends, when CW
contest stations would break up SSB and AM QSOs on the band and when SSB
contest stations would interfere with CW stations. Since you seem to like
regulation so much, let's file a petition to the FCC to restrict contests,
preferably to frequencies above 420 MHz.

        "I believe most of your remaining comments have to do with 
the amount of spectrum set aside for wideband modes on our bands.
For the record, I agree that current wideband segments should be 
expanded on the 80, 40 (after upcoming WRC 2003 decisions) and 15 
meter bands and so stated in my response to ARRL's RM-10413 (Novice 
Refarming) repeated below.

        Where I part ways with both you and K4KYV is the idea that we
completely abolish mode segmentation on all bands.  As stated before,
we've been there and done that on 160 (with the problems cited above)
and should not repeat that experience elsewhere.  Rather than lightening
the FCC's workload, this would likely guarantee lifetime employment for 
several more Special Counsels which you and I would fund as taxpayers.
For those who are Libertarians, the result of total deregulation can 
be observed at any time by tuning your dial to 27 MHz."

What you are telling us, Mr. Tippett, is that Americans are ignorant slobs
who, like the southern blacks of the 1950s, deserve to be kept at the "back
of the bus". The REST OF THE WORLD does not have to put up with
government-mandated emission subbands. And it seems to work fine. Are the
Japanese, Canadians, Europeans, and Latin Americans somehow more
sophisticated than Americans? Meanwhile, large sections of valuable HF
spectrum go to waste in this country: 3540-3750 kHz, 14.100-14.150 MHz, and
21.100-21.250 MHz due to these obsolete regulations. Perhaps you would
prefer to hear Brother Stair and Dr. Gene Scott using these frequencies.
Surely the international broadcasters are salivating over all that nice
spectrum.  

        "An additional comment has to do with the experimentation issue.  
For your information, that "antiquated" CW mode was the mode used to 
make the first Transatlantic QSO between North America and Europe on 136 
kHz last year.  Granted it was using QRSS (~0.8 WPM) with spectragraphic
DSP to achieve ultra-narrowband filtering, but it was CW.  CW is also
regularly used for weak signal work whether it is moonbounce on the
VHF bands or working long path propagation modes on 160."  

I know and I have personally done it! I am not parked on AM mode during all
the time I am on the air. I happen to work almost every mode permitted under
my license, including CW. Where our ossified regulations cause problems is
with the newer digital voice modes, such as OFDM. It is very significant
that the BRITISH, and not the American amateurs are experimenting with this
mode, despite the fact that OFDM was invented at Bell Laboratories in Murray
Hill, New Jersey! An OFDM signal consists of multiple carriers carrying the
digital bitstream. Using SSB bandwidth, it is possible to achieve near-FM
broadcast quality on voice transmissions. Using AM bandwidth, it is possible
to achieve FM broadcast quality and/or transmit images without the "hits"
and noise of analog SSTV. But there's a nice little Catch-22 in your beloved
Section 97.305 of the Rules. It is forbidden to use digital modes on the
phone bands. But, since OFDM is being used to transmit the human voice or
image, isn't it a "voice" or "image" transmission for the purpose of that
paragraph, and therefore forbidden in the CW/digital subbands? Even with
text modes, it is a DISGRACE that we are limited to 300 baud on HF when
teenage kids can transmit images over a standard, voice-grade telephone
line, courtesy of the Internet.

        "One final point for you or K4KYV to consider.  If you believe 
in voluntary bandplans, why are you resistant to legal segmentation?"

Because inflexible, government-mandated segmentation does not allow for
changes in operating preferences nor does it allow for new modes that were
not thought of when the regulations were drafted.

Please extract your head from your butt and do some listening on our HF
bands. Or try to work phone on 40 at night!

73,
Phil Galasso
K2PG