From: paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: New licensing system? (Cut down the CW bands!!)
Organization: The Three Packeteers
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:28:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.153609.8577@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>I was addressing the issue of SS being illegal at HF. Wide usage *can't*
>develop if the technique is illegal. The arguments over tubes and spark
>were illustrations of the resistance to change by amateurs of the era.

All of your cost and feasibility examples are for DSP filters, not Spread
Spectrum.  I have yet to see a spread spectrum kit, let alone a commercial
product, despite that fact that it's perfectly legal on UHF.  So your argument
fails empirically.


>The cry of "spark forever" from the rank and file did require Federal
>action to resolve even though some amateurs had already converted to
>tubes, legally, before the rules changes. Now the problem with HF SS
>is that it can never start if the "spark forever" forces inhibit the
>Feds from legalizing it. The cases are somewhat different, but the
>analogy still applies.

No, most amateurs had already converted by the time of the Radio Act of '27.
See DeSoto.  As to SS, again, you're forgetting that HF rules are done
Internationally, and not just by "the Feds".  The change will not be accepted
until somebody demonstrates that SS per se is significantly more sprectrally
efficient than any existing technique.

>The Kenwood box *is* a new rig, not just a DSP processor. The existance
>of the small add on box, priced at $199.95 shows that the product can be
>and *is* being marketed at a reasonable price. When microprocessors were
>first introduced into radios, they were more expensive too, but every
>manufacturer now includes at least one as a matter of course. Adjusted
>for inflation, microprocessor equipped rigs are cheaper today than the
>analog units they replaced were in their day. I'm saying I expect DSP
>to be included as a routine matter of course in future rigs, just like
>microprocessors are in rigs today, and that the parts cost is already
>low and rapidly falling further so that the price of the rig won't
>necessarily increase much if at all when they become a routine part of
>every HF radio. If one of the major manufacturers introduces DSP, and
>Kenwood already has, then the others will be forced to do so in order
>to stay competitive.

Okay, now we've shifted back to DSP filters and not SS.  Again, nothing 
prevents you from putting better filters into your rig.  As to the particulars
of your arguments:  First of all, the box to which I was referring was the
DSP-100 for the TS-850s.  It predates the TS950sdx (with the built in DSP).
As a separate box, it gives a good indication of the cost not only of 
the technology, but also the cost to retrofit everything out there.
Secondly, you dropped the argument about what really determines the end user
cost of a technology, namely worth.  Empirically, processor technologies in
the amateur domain have not ridden a downward trend terminating at cost; DSP
is certainly no different.

>TNCs today are at a price point where large numbers of amateurs consider
>their functionality worth the cost, over 150,000 TNC2 type units have
>been sold in the amateur market and the price has declined threefold
>from that of the original TNC1 due to competition. And yet TNCs aren't
>adjuncts to historical amateur communications methods. They are specialized
>tools for a specialized mode. DSP is much more generally applicable to
>amateur practice. That means a larger demand, larger sales, more competition,
>and generally lower prices. I predict that a HF rig without DSP will be
>considered "quaint" in 10 years just as rigs without microprocessors are
>today, and that manufacturers will be hard pressed to sell such limited
>radios.

The problem with this argument is that you've attempting to fix something
that isn't broken.  Better filters are an *enhancement*, not a necessity
by any means -- unless, of course, you're advocating deliberate interference
with other stations.  Looking at the prices for add on crystal filters for
HF rigs, and you'll see that the trigger price for better filters is around
$100 or so.  

The original question at the start of this thread was "is the current
narroband / wideband HF band split justified?", to which you had two separate
responses:

1.  That wideband modes and narrowband modes can coexist with DSP FILTERING.
2.  That Spread Spectrum is more spectrally efficent than narrowband modes.

#1 is clearly false for the narrowband user, without correlation equipment.
While you've demonstrated the potential for the necessary equipment, you 
havn't demonstrated the existence of such equipment.  You've demonstrated that
cheap DSP filtering systems exist for wideband users, but not for narrowband
users.  The only existing DSP transceive equipment for narrowband modes is 
about 5x as expensive as the DSP receive only filters.  None of this equipment
is necessary as long as wideband and narrowband modes are not colocated.

#2 is also clearly false.  Aside from the lack of proof, you have yet to show
the existence of available equipment, despite the legality of such equipment
at UHF.

On top of all of this, you have yet to provide a sufficient justification for
change; what group of users is harmed by the modal separation?  Without some
demonstration that a significant number of hams are deprived of needed 
spectrum, this whole argument is pointless.



--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  | "Just name a hero, and I'll prove he's a bum."
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          |  -- Col. Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, USMC (ret)
Organization: Graduate School of Industrial Administr., Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA