From: paulf@w6yx (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: Paul Flaherty Proposal
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:33:38 GMT

Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend) writes:


FZX>1. A 10 kHz allocation, channelized initially at 500 kHz.
FZX>2. Allocations on the 12, 17, and 30m bands.
FZX>3. 100w output power to a 10dbi or greater directive antenna.
FZX>4. Unattended HF autoforwarding by Extra Class Licensees only.
FZX>5. A coordinated operation has precedence over an uncoordinated operation.

>Lets take a look at this proposal, for which I commend you.  First of all it
>is apparent that this is a PACKET only proposal.

Notice the complete absence of the word "PACKET" in my proposal above.  This
is a proposal addressing unattended automatic autoforwarding.  I specifically
avoided naming any modulation or protocol technology; one should avoid 
codifying such things as much as possible.

>For you see, packet and other Digital Modes do not co-exist on the same
>frequency. If you would like a demonstration give me a call and your packet
>frequency I will fire up an APLINK system or a RTTY QSO.

Excellent!  What better justification for subbanding?  Clearly, we don't
expect repeaters, fm simplex, cw and sideband to coexist in the VHF and
UHF arena; why should we expect any different in HF?

>Item four is the worst part of the entire proposal.  Why is an EXTRA class any
>better, more capable, or anything.  The FCC has just dropped their SPACE
>restrictions from an extra class.  Not a single operator that went into SPACE
>was an EXTRA all were given exemptions.  What does the ability to copy CW have
>to do with Digital. I am an extra, but so what.

If I had my choice, I would really propose that unattended automatic
autoforwarding be limited to club stations; however, since the FCC isn't
issuing new club licenses, this would be a tad unfair.  Your argument about
Extra Class priviledges is not unique to this proposal, and it does ignore
the Extra written, which actually does contain some material germane to the
issue.

>Item five is the most wonderful of all and is the part that always gets me.
>Lets see.  The AMTOR folks don't get along with the RTTY folks.  The packet
>folks don't like the PACTOR HF autoforwarders and on and on.  The frequencys
>would of course be restricted from normal use? Could I try CLOVER there?

Again, the question is not one of mode; rather, it's a question of 
unattended operation.  You are quite clearly creating a strawman out of
the differences between the digital modes, differences which are not 
relevant to unattended operation.

>I reject. HF Channelization.

Nothing new.  10m FM has been channelized for years.  It makes the equipment
cheaper, and results in better transmitter - receiver alignment, which
in turn leads to better reception and demodulation.

> HF exclusiveness.

Oh really?  Then why are you opposing a proposal to have less than 1% of the 
amateur spectrum serve the needs of, in all probability, more than half of
the amateur population?

> HF Modalization. 

Strawman.  See above.


The autoforwarding BBS system represents a large portion of the amateur 
community. Its needs (connecting large catanets) can be easily met with small
amounts of spectrum, whose capacity will increase as the cost for the technology
decreases.  The new WARC spectrum and its use should reflect needs of the
present and future, not of the past.

--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  |"Anyway, nothing can beat Good Old American
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          | Know - How." -- Harry Canyon, _Heavy Metal_