From: estey@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com
Subject: Results of Cedar Rapids, IA HF STA Survey
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:11:00 GMT

               RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE AND PETITION ON 
               HF FORWARDING AT THE CEDAR RAPIDS HAMFEST

	A questionnaire was circulated at the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Hamfest
on August 16 concerning HF packet forwarding and automatic operation.

     Of the 990 who attended, according to ticket receipts, 202 respon-
ded to the questionnaire, of which 190 were currently-licensed hams. Of
those who replied, 54% were active on packet, 31% intended to be, and
14% declared they were not interested in packet. 


                     DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

     Of all who responded, 93% felt that automatic HF packet forwarding
is worthwhile, and 5% felt it was not (2% not responding).  Of those
active on packet or intending to be, excluding those who did not reply,
there were 97% in favor and 3% against; whereas of those not interested
in packet, they were still 76% in favor and 24% against.

     Because of its technical nature, the remainder of the questionnaire
was analyzed only for the 190 licensed hams who responded, and in each
case, responses left blank were not included.

     Only six (3% of the hams who replied) agreed with the ARRL Digital
Committee that packet is inferior to other digital modes and hence that
forwarding should be prohibited to encourage progress, five of those
being hams who declared they were not interested in packet.

     Only about 8% agreed with the Board of Directors and ARRL President
that there would be too many automatic forwarding station if automatic
operation were approved, although 34% said they weren't sure.  A clear
majority of 58% thus felt there would not be too many such stations.

     To a suggestion that 10 kHz of 20 and 40 meters should be devoted
to automatic forwarding, 84% felt that this would be okay, 5% each con-
sidering this too little, too much, and that none should be allocated. 

     Only 23% felt that forwarding should be restricted to sub-bands by
the FCC, 31% feeling that it should not, and 46% feeling that it should
be restricted only if voluntary compliance does not work.

     Twelve of the respondents, or 6% of those who replied, had replied
to the QST survey on this issue, and a question about whether that sur-
vey made clear the consequences to VHF packet produced no significant
results because too few others had read (or even noticed) that survey. 

     Although 84% indicated that they would not or probably not plan
to operate an automatic forwarding station if automatic operation were
permitted, 13% said they probably would (including, for some unknown
reason, two of those who indicated they were not even interested in
packet), and another 3% indicated (by writing in) that they maybe might. 


                              PETITION

     In connection with the questionnaire, the hamfest attendees were
also asked to sign a petition requesting the FCC to permit automatic
operation below 30 MHz, with no other stipulations.  Although not all
of those who completed the questionnaire also signed the petition, a
considerable number signed the petition without completing the ques-
tionnaire, and 233 signatures were thus obtained, representing 24% of
all those who attended the hamfest. 


                              COMMENTS
  
     Although producing fewer replies (202) than the nationwide QST
survey on this issue (which was answered by 507), we sampled roughly
20% of the ham community to whom we had access, whereas the ARRL sam-
pled scarcely more than ONE-THIRD OF ONE PERCENT of their membership.

     Our survey, however, unlike that of the ARRL, was addressed to
all hams, and not just those interested in "planning automated message
systems" [see Jan. 1992 QST, pp.41-42], and it also made clear the
impact to packet users everywhere, which the QST survey did not even
mention.  Despite being restricted to a single midwestern hamfest,
therefore, it is believed our survey more accurately represents the
true feelings of the ham community.

     The results were quite overwhelming, by a ratio of almost nineteen
to one, in favor of automatic HF forwarding. 

     Our respondents also clearly rejected the Digital Committee's lo-
gic that packet forwarding should be prohibited to encourage progress.

     Although not by as wide a margin, they also rejected the Board's
concern that, if approved, there would be too many automatic forwarding
stations.  This, however, is offset by the result that 13-16% might plan
to operate such a station, and I must concur with the Board that this
is a major area of concern.  (I would, however, urge the Board to under-
stand fully how packet channel-sharing works before it concludes that
this would be devastating, and to not sell short our ability to cope
with the congestion that may result.) 

     The suggestion that 10 kHz segments of the critical 20 and 40 meter
bands should be devoted to automatic forwarding was favored by 89% of
the hams who replied (counting also those who favored more), with about
a quarter favoring an FCC rule to this effect, almost a third (31%)
favoring no restriction, and nearly half (46%) being willing to try
voluntary compliance first.  These suggest that the underlying problem 
of competition for spectrum space between different modes might be
handled simply by updating existing band plans to allow for packet
forwarding, and that roughly 10 kHz segments might be appropriate for
our two most critical bands.

     Finally, the ARRL should pay careful attention to how easy it was
for us to get 24% signatures on a petition, even though each ham had to
effectively (and literally) put his callsign on the line.  Although we
are aware that the FCC doesn't give much weight to such popular peti-
tions, it doesn't ignore them either, and this clearly indicates that
many hams are quite serious about this. 

     These results have been transmitted to our division director so he
can bring them to the attention of the Executive Committee at the L.A.
Convention next weekend.

Wynne Calvert, W0IUQ
Barry J. Buelow, WA0RJT

18 August 1992
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
Carl Estey                  |  Home Mail Address: 276 Walnut Lane
Amateur Callsign:    WA0CQG |                     Apple Valley, MN 55124
                            |  Business Address:  Honeywell Inc.
Phone: Work (612) 542-5136  |  Flight Systems & Test Operations M/S MN15-2370
       FAX  (612) 542-6003  |  1625 Zarthan Ave. S., St. Louis Park, MN 55416
       Home (612) 432-0699  |  Packet: WA0CQG @ WA0CQG.#SOMSP.MN.USA.NA   
The nonsense here is of my own making - no one else would want credit!