From: jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:46:12 EDT
Organization: American Radio Relay League

In rec.radio.amateur.policy, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <Jul.24.14.02.24.1992.26406@pilot.njin.net> ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) writes:
>>As someone who regularly operates in the digital section of the bands
>>(mostly AMTOR, occasionally RTTY, almost never packet).  I am
>>extremely disheartened by the ARRL digital committees decisions.
>
>I agree.

Me too.

>>First:  The ARRL themselves have been one of the prime offenders of
>>contrary to good amateur practice in the 14.07 to 14.15 MHz digital
>>zone.  It was only a few years ago that they decided to pay attention
>>to the band plan that they themselves proposed and move the automated
>>CW transmissions off the AMTOR calling frequency.  They're broadcast
>>transmissions still rarely pay much attention to existing
>>communications on the frequency.
>
>I'd say they pay *no* attention to existing QSOs, they just fire up
>and blare away without regard for prior channel occupancy. Sometimes
>the skip is such that they *can't* tell that the frequency is in use,
>and that's excusable, but most of the time they just don't listen at
>all. That's contrary to good amateur practice.

I'm sorry, Gary, were you referring to W1AW or to automated packet BBS
stations? :->

As far as I know, W1AW operators *never* check the frequency first.
Aside from the pure impracticality of checking seven frequencies
simultaneously, moving the bulletin frequencies to accommodate
existing QSOs would mean that users of the bulletins would have to
hunt for the signal.  This would be particularly troublesome for the
automated AMTOR FEC receiving stations!  (Oh, the irony of it all...)
The schedule of transmissions is published far and wide.  The theory
is that the benefit is worth the "cost" of having fixed frequencies.
Perhaps you don't feel W1AW bulletins are worthwhile, but there are
may hams who think they are.  W1AW transmissions just aren't the same
thing as "regular" amateur operations.  Neither are automated BBS
operations, which is why they need special handling.  My view is
that subbands should be set aside for fully automatic operation.
Of course, ARRL *tried* to do that once and was greeted by a storm of
protest.  That's because the effort was mismanaged, in my opinion.
But subbands are still the only viable solution, and I refuse to
accept that room can't be found for them on several (not necessarily
all) HF bands.

[packet channel sharing points deleted]

>The *worst* thing
>the ARRL has done was to get AX25 written in stone in the rules.

Actually, it was the FCC that wanted AX.25 written into the rules.
Specifically, the Field Operations Bureau if memory serves.  ARRL didn't
ask for it and doesn't like it, but it's better to have it the way it is
than to have no *VHF* automatic third-party relay.

[off-the-point discussion of user channels vs. BBS channels deleted]

>>Frankly, in my mind the ARRL recommendation is WORSE than the status
>>quo.  I think that the committee should rethink their PR, for I
>>believe that they are going to get a substantial amount of negative
>>comment when it gets to the public comment stage.
>
>Absolutely. The reason HF forwarding works at all well is that the BBS
>systems will keep trying to forward until a path develops between the
>sender and receiver. By going to manned operation, the forwarding will
>be greatly delayed, and the value of HF gateway BBSs will be reduced to
>the point that the system will collapse.

I have no doubt that non-automatic forwarding can't support the BBS
network.  But the status isn't all that "quo."  The current network
will be shut down at the end of the year when the STA expires--the
FCC *won't* renew it--unless new rules are in place.  So *some* kind
of request for rulemaking has to be made.  Of course, FCC may well
be willing to go further than ARRL is if cogent arguments are made in
favor of automatic forwarding.

>If the digital committee's
>proposal is adopted, it will signal the end of the long haul network,
>such as it is, and will bar improvements to the system like new modem
>designs and new, more robust, protocol designs. All we'll have
>left for long haul will be wormholes using the telephone network, and
>limited traffic moving via amateur satellite. That at a time when the
>NTS is finally recognizing the value of packet for rapid *accurate*
>relaying of messages. BBS operators might as well forget radio and
>start running FIDONET nodes.

I don't see why modem and protocol development would die out if the
HF forwarding BBS network went away.  There are a hell of a lot more
stations on HF packet than just the ones operating under the STA.
Wouldn't those other users want improved HF performance?

The bottom line is that the existing proposal is neither fish nor
fowl and (surprise!) satisfies practically nobody.

We missed several days of news here, so maybe someone commented on
this and I didn't see it... does anyone else find it amazing that
the Digital Committee's report refers to successful "semi-automatic"
operation by RTTY and AMTOR systems since the sixties--with no mention
of the blatant illegality of such operation?
-------
Jon Bloom, KE3Z                   |  jbloom@arrl.org
American Radio Relay League       |
225 Main St.                      |
Newington, CT 06111               |