From: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Date: 25 Jul 92 22:12:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: qualcomm.1992Jul25.221253.25797
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc

Although I'm no longer on the ARRL Digital Committee (having moved to
the new Future Systems Committee as part of last year's reorganization)
I do know something about the history of automatic digital operation on
HF. Hopefully my points here should quash a few of the more outrageous
comments made recently.

1. The existing automatic HF forwarding operation is not allowed under
present FCC rules. It is authorized under a Special Temporary
Authorization. The operative word here is "Temporary". As much as we
might like to continue the present operation, this is simply not an
option. The FCC has given clear notice that it will not renew the STA
again. It wants us hams to propose rule changes that would make the STA
unnecessary. So the Digital Committee is NOT proposing to "take away"
anything. It is proposing rules that would expand the existing rules to
let the average amateur do something that he cannot now do. If you want
to retain things as they now are under the STA, your problem is with the
FCC, not the Digital Committee.

2. The last time the Digital Committee attempted to draft something for
the FCC, it proposed to allow fully automatic operation in certain
specific subbands. Unfortunately, this stepped on the toes of the RTTY,
AMTOR and foreign SSB operators because of the specific frequencies
chosen. Also, it was misunderstood by some amateurs who thought it would
restrict *all* packet to the subbands. (It didn't -- only *automatic*
operation.) So the proposal was shot down. And to broaden the committee
(which admittedly had been formed with a much narrower charter in mind
back when packet was still an experimental mode) people were brought in
from non-packet digital fields, like Dale Sinner, W6IWO.

3. Although the Digital Committee's latest proposal was written after I
left the committee, I have read it and I think I understand the
reasoning behind it (without necessarily agreeing with it). It looks
like a valiant (though perhaps futile) attempt to strike a balance
between some very strongly entrenched interests, some of whom wouldn't
mind if packet were banned altogether from HF.

Look, the Digital Committee is really caught in a no-win situation here.
Personally, I am deliriously happy to no longer have to sit through
heated three-hour arguments about HF STAs and whether 20m packet ought
to be on 14.109 or 14.1072 or somewhere below 14.100. These interminable
arguments about a dead-end technology took up valuable time that I
thought was much better spent on truly promising topics, like new
protocols and high speed transmission technologies. Fortunately, this is
what the Future Systems Committee is now chartered to do.

But please give the new Digital Committee a break. They are trying to do
the impossible -- keeping every HF user (packet or otherwise) happy.
Personally, I think present HF packet technology just isn't up to the
task. I once calculated that at typical rates, just the cost of
electricity to power a kilowatt linear in a packet station is more than
AT&T's rates for shipping the same information at night across the phone
using a reasonably efficient modem. To say nothing, of course, of the
extra hassle, equipment and RFI problems. And there's also the Internet.
But if people really want to run operational automatic HF packet
networks, I agree that the rules ought to allow it.

Phil