August 10, 2004

Later this year, the ARRL plans to file a petition with the FCC seeking the regulation of amateur subbands by bandwidth rather than by mode of emission.

The principle of the petition was adopted by the ARRL Board of Directors in July 2002. The motion adopted at that time (Minute 64) reads: "At the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode."

The main objective is to make appropriate provision for digital modes in the HF amateur bands, while preserving amateurs' prerogatives to use the traditional modes.

Before the petition was drafted, expert advice was sought from the amateur HF digital community. An ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee was formed. The committee submitted its report several months prior to the July 2003 meeting of the ARRL Board. Staff also provided an interim report at that time. A draft petition was reviewed by the Board at its January 2004 meeting. Additional review was conducted by the ARRL Executive Committee at its March 2004 meeting, and a final review by Board members was accomplished by electronic mail in late July.

In March the Executive Committee decided that a synopsis and explanation of the petition should be made available to ARRL members before it is filed with the FCC to give members and others who may be interested an opportunity to understand what is being proposed, and why.

Here are some points about the ARRL proposals that may be worth emphasizing:

• Double-sideband AM operation is preserved unchanged, but without opening the phone bands to digital and other modes of the same bandwidth.

• At the present time, RTTY and data emissions are permitted by FCC rule throughout the HF "CW subbands." It is only through compliance with "gentlemen's agreements" that RTTY and data signals are not heard in the parts of the band that are generally used for CW. The proposed rules would limit bandwidth in these "CW subbands" to 200 Hz.

• Bandwidth in the existing "RTTY/data subbands" would be limited by rule to either 500 Hz or 3 kHz. In the following subbands where 3 kHz would be permitted, phone emissions would specifically not be permitted: 3650-3725, 7100-7125, 14100-14150, and 21150-21200 kHz. The reason for this is to encourage the development of higher-speed data communications in these subbands by preventing them from becoming de facto "expanded phone bands." The prior ARRL proposal to expand some HF phone bands is included in the separate FCC Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 04-140, and is taken into account in these new proposals.

• Amateurs would not be required to be able to measure the bandwidth of their signals. The proposed bandwidths are more than sufficient for "clean" signals using the traditional HF modes. We have had regulation by bandwidth for certain data operations for many years without fomenting great debate over whether or not a particular signal was legal. Measurement would only arise as a potential problem for those who try to push the edge of the envelope.

• Bandwidth limits would be eliminated in the 222-225 MHz band; the only bandwidth limitation would be that the signal must be confined within the band.

Please read the synopsis of the petition, below, as well as the exact rules changes that will be proposed. If you have any questions or comments, please direct them to bandwidth@arrl.org. ARRL staff will do its best to answer your questions. Comments will be forwarded to your ARRL division director. Members are also welcome, as always, to comment directly to their own director using the email address listed on page 15 of any recent issue of QST.

73,

David Sumner, K1ZZ
Chief Executive Officer, ARRL
For the ARRL Board of Directors

Introduction

The rule changes proposed in this petition would comprehensively modify the means by which the extremely varied emission modes in the Amateur Radio Service are developed, experimented with, and regularly utilized in the course of normal Amateur Radio communications. In short, the Petition proposes Amateur band segmentation not by emission type, but by maximum bandwidth. This petition seeks for the Amateur Radio Service the flexibility to experiment with new digital transmission methods and types. The changes proposed will also update the Commission's rules, and eliminate much of the currently cumbersome procedures for determining whether a new digital communications technology is or is not permitted under the Part 97 regulations.

Background

The Amateur Radio Service rules limit emission types that can be deployed in the Amateur Service. The reason for this is largely historical, rather than practical. ARRL suggests a shift in regulatory philosophy to one based on facilitating research, development, experimentation and refinement of Amateur Radio digital communications techniques and advanced technologies. In order to encourage the implementation of new technologies in the Amateur Radio Service, the rules must be modified to more flexibly accommodate use of such technologies. The philosophy espoused herein is to regulate bands by bandwidth rather than specific or defined emission modes. This is to make it easier for new types of emissions to be introduced compatibly among incumbent emission types, while reducing or eliminating the regulatory burden of interpreting rules in the context of an outdated regulatory matrix. This can be done without prohibiting or significantly restricting use of current Amateur Radio technologies and emission modes. Care has been exercised to avoid any reduction of choices of emissions that could be used by existing licensees.

Established amateur practice, current rules, and accepted band plans generally provide for narrow-bandwidth signals at the lower frequency range of each band with wider bandwidth emission types at the top. In order to implement digital technologies, there appears to be a need for an intermediate bandwidth in the middle of certain bands.

This petition seeks to facilitate the use of new digital technologies without the regulatory remnants developed at a time when the principal emissions used in the Amateur Radio Service were Morse telegraphy and single- or double-sideband amplitude-modulated telephony.

The existing rules incorporate both bandwidth and symbol-rate limits. This double regulation undoubtedly has handicapped Amateur digital data communications. It is now clearly necessary to permit higher data rates to accommodate the development of digital multimedia technology.

The existing rules do provide some accommodation for new digital technologies. Specific "designer" digital data modes were accommodated due to a modification of §97.309(a)(4):

An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.

Digital voice is also accommodated to a certain extent under the definition of Phone in §97.3(c)(5), though the accommodation requires some interpretation, and the matter is not clear to many radio amateurs, leading to burdensome interpretational questions to ARRL and Commission staff. Amateur Radio operators have both scientific curiosity and a healthy self-regulatory attitude. As such, they tend to avoid use of experimental technologies if there is a question about the legality of it under the Part 97 rules.

In addition, given the current expectations for use of digital multimedia, the lines between data, image and voice have blurred. As an example, amateurs are now sending pictures using MFSK 16 in the segments of the bands where data (not image) emission is permitted. A reasonable interpretation of the current Part 97 rules would indicate that this is permitted, but the legality of it is not readily apparent to all who would otherwise experiment with digital multimedia.

In summary, there is a need to permit higher speed digital data communications in the bands between 1.8 and 450 MHz. The simplest means of streamlining the Commission's rules, while at the same time providing maximum flexibility for the incorporation of new digital communications looking forward to the next decade, is to provide for band segmentation by bandwidth rather than by emission mode in the Part 97 Rules.

Regulation of emissions by limiting bandwidth is not the only option. Many countries do not segment their amateur bands by bandwidth or mode in their domestic regulations. Rather, band planning is done either on a regional basis through the International Amateur Radio Union band plans, or through voluntary band plans developed by the national Amateur Radio society in that country. In those cases, the rules simply require that amateur signals be kept within the allocated band. Because there is a strong tradition in the United States of restricting subbands by rule rather than purely through voluntary band plans, complete elimination of regulatory band segments and complete reliance on informal band planning does not appear to be a suitable option in the United States.

Bandwidth Segmentation by Regulation

Having a narrow bandwidth segment and a wide bandwidth segment would tend to keep signals of roughly the same bandwidth in their own spectrum. The specific bandwidth limits, once incorporated in the Rules, would promote some new technologies and allow a more natural development of popular new digital technologies. It would also satisfactorily protect incumbent analog services to a reasonable extent, just as Amateurs do now, using dynamic frequency selection methods.

ARRL was guided by advice from an Ad Hoc Digital Committee formed to advise on issues that arise from the development of new high-frequency digital data modes of operation. In summary, the recommendations of that Committee were to delete the symbol rate limitations in Sections 97.307(f)(3) and (4); to segment the bands below 28.0 MHz by nominal bandwidths of 200, 500 and 2700 Hz as upper limits; and to require that digital data protocols be published, to facilitate monitoring. The Committee was aware of the bandwidths and frequency segments under consideration by Region 1 of the International Amateur Radio Union. The bandwidth of 200 Hz was chosen to accommodate Morse telegraphy and the narrowest RTTY/data emissions. A bandwidth of 500 Hz would permit the foregoing modes and a wide range of RTTY/data modes and some image modes yet to be designed. IARU Region 1 studies chose a bandwidth of 2700 Hz for SSB telephony and to accommodate digital voice and higher speed data. The Rules already specify a bandwidth of 2800 Hz for SSB voice in the 60-meter band. As the issue is a maximum regulatory bandwidth, not practice, which varies from (say) 2400 to 2800 Hz, a bandwidth of 3000 Hz is recommended.

There are certain incumbent amateur operations that should be allowed to continue, though they may not comply with the above-referenced bandwidth limitations. Principal among these is double-sideband AM, which has a significant following in the Amateur community. The proposed rules accommodate continued DSB-AM operation in the high-frequency bands without additional restriction.

The existing § 97.305(c) table is proposed for deletion as it segments bands by mode of emission. It would be replaced with a table segmenting bands by bandwidth, with the new paragraph (e) including some consequential renumbering of § 97.305. The bandwidths 200 Hz, 500 Hz, 2.8 kHz, 3 kHz, 6 kHz, 9 kHz, 16 kHz and 100 kHz appear in the proposed rules.

► 200 Hz is intended to be the narrowest bandwidth to permit Morse telegraphy at all speeds that human operators can decode. The necessary bandwidth depends on speed and whether the circuit is fading or non-fading. An analysis by ARRL in the 1980s showed that 150 Hz is adequate and is based on rise and fall times of 5 ms. A bandwidth of 200 Hz will permit data modes such as PSK31 as well.

► 500 Hz is meant to provide for RTTY and data modes, and possibly new image modes, but the bandwidth is not adequate for conventional telephony. This is not, however, to exclude experimentation with highly compressed or synthesized telephony designed to fit in a 500-Hz bandwidth at sacrifice of natural sounding voice.

► 2.8 kHz is required by NTIA for Amateur use only on the 60-meter channels.

► 3 kHz would accommodate SSB and digital telephony, image, high-speed data and multi-media (that is, a combination of these modes). However, 3 kHz is not wide enough for DSB-AM or independent sideband (ISB), so a separate sub-paragraph are proposed, as below.

► 6 kHz bandwidth is reasonable bandwidth for Independent Sideband (ISB), as this would be two, 3-kHz upper and lower sidebands.

► 9 kHz: The emission designator 6K00A3E is commonly seen but not many DSB-AM transmitters have --26 dB bandwidths of 6 kHz or less. Some of the DSB-AM transmitters use high-level modulation with L-C roll-off and their --26 dB bandwidths exceed 6 kHz. There are also some converted broadcast transmitters that exceed 6-kHz bandwidth. ARRL is suggesting a 9 kHz --26 dB bandwidth as a reasonable compromise that most transmitters will meet.

► 16 kHz also is a reasonable compromise bandwidth to permit analog FM voice, data, digital voice and multimedia in the 29.0-29.7 MHz segment.

► 100 kHz is presently permitted (for RTTY and data) in bands above 420 MHz. It is reasonable to extend this maximum bandwidth starting at 50 MHz (avoiding 50-50.3 MHz and 144-144.3 MHz), so as to allow both digital multimedia and high-speed meteor scatter (burst) communications.

Band-by-Band Summary

The following is a band-by-band summary of the changes proposed in the table at

§ 97.305(e). For details see "Proposed Rules Changes." The proposed changes are intended and are believed to be consistent with the Commission's proposal for "refarming" the Novice Class subbands proposed in WT Docket No. 04-140, and which is now pending.

► 160 m band: This petition does not propose segmenting the 160-meter band but would allow bandwidths from 0 to 3 kHz throughout (while permitting DSB-AM and ISB). ARRL's band plan recommends that the band be segmented informally by mode. ARRL does not suggest band segmentation in this band by regulation. However, should the Commission determine at some time in the future that segmentation by regulation is in the public interest, it is recommended that the segmentation be accomplished by bandwidth limits and not by emission mode, in accordance with the recommendations in this Petition.

► 80 m and 75 m bands: The three tiers of bandwidth are as recommended by ARRL's ad hoc HF Digital Committee. Standard (4) ensures that the 3-kHz digital segment does not simply result in a de facto expansion of the phone band beyond the 25 kHz expansion proposed in WT Docket No. 04-140.

► 60 m band: The five channels and the Alaska Emergency calling channel are added here because they have specific bandwidth limitations inherent in the Amateur allocation, which should be specified as are other bands in the table, especially because of the unique maximum bandwidths specified elsewhere in the rules.

► 40 m band: This is consistent with the recommendation of the ARRL ad hoc HF Digital Committee regarding bandwidths but has been modified to take WT Docket No. 04-140 into account.

► 30 m band: This proposes 200 and 500-Hz bandwidths but does not propose 3 kHz, which would open the band to phone operation or other voice-bandwidth modes. It is ARRL's view that voice-bandwidth emissions should not be permitted in this band because of this relatively narrow secondary international allocation and the need to avoid interference to the primary service in other countries.

► 20 m band: The limitation in the 14.100-14.150 MHz segment would prohibit telephony but would permit the development of higher-speed data and image techniques using bandwidths of up to 3 kHz.

► 17, 15 and 12 m bands: These preserve the status quo except to introduce a 3-kHz digital segment in the 15 m band.

► 10 m band: This would permit a 16-kHz bandwidth in the upper part of the band, 29.0-29.7 MHz, but otherwise preserves the status quo.

► 6 and 2 m bands: This preserves the lower 300 kHz in each band for narrowband, weak-signal modes reflecting established practice, but opens the rest of these bands for bandwidths up to 100 kHz. This is intended to permit new modes, particularly multimedia.

► 1.25 m band(s): Both of the segments of this band already permit up to 100 kHz bandwidth for data. The ARRL requested in RM-10413 that spread spectrum emissions be authorized in the 222-225 MHz band.

► 70 cm through 1 mm bands: Present rules permit 100 kHz for data but allow wider bandwidth for TV, generally regarded as up to 6 MHz for vestigial sideband AM in bands below 1240 MHz, noting that FM TV is used in bands above 1240 MHz. In these bands, the rules should minimize regulation of bandwidth to permit maximum flexibility in Amateur operation. The only limitation should be to keep the occupied bandwidth of the emission in the allocated in the band and utilize normal band-sharing protocols.

Other Specific Rules Changes

One new limitation being proposed, as recommended by the Ad Hoc Digital Committee, is to eliminate fully automatic control of HF data communications in the bands below 28.0 MHz. Fully automatic control, where both stations in communication are under automatic control, was initiated in the mid-1980s to provide for the automatic forwarding of messages using the AX.25 packet protocol. Today it is not necessary and complicates efficient sharing of crowded HF spectrum. However, "semi-automatic control," where one station is automatically controlled but all communication must be initiated by a station under operator control, appears to be practicable. Therefore, modifications of § 97.109(e) and §97.221(b) are proposed to eliminate automatic control of HF data operation below 28.0 MHz except where one station in communication is under local control of an operator. While it would be impractical for an automatically controlled station to tell whether the other station is under automatic or local control, it should suffice to require that stations under automatic control not initiate communications.

The title of § 97.221, "Automatically controlled digital station" is misleading and is proposed to read, "Automatically controlled stations transmitting RTTY or data emissions." The term "digital" is too broad, as CW is a digital emission, also especially since the introduction of digital voice and digital image emissions.

Section 97.119 (b)(1) is proposed to be modified by adding MCW for the purposes of identification in addition to CW, as the former is in common use for repeater identification. Phone emission in the English language is proposed to remain but with the limitation that it be done on frequency segments where there is sufficient bandwidth authorized. Identification in the emission used for communication is also proposed, which will cover new emissions not originally specified. Accordingly, there is no longer a need to specify identification in accordance with § 73.482(a) and it is proposed that § 97.119(b)(4) be deleted.

The current § 97.305(b) mixes the subjects of test transmissions, pulse emissions and spread spectrum. For ease of understanding, it should be amended to deal only with test emissions.

Rather than the current language in § 97.309 concerning RTTY and data emission codes which specify some codes but permit others that are published, the proposal is simply that the digital codes be published.

Concluding Summary

The regulation of emission modes in Amateur Radio Service allocations is a limiting factor with respect to Amateur Radio experimentation. It leads to attempts to put new technology into a regulatory framework that was designed only to deal with older analog emissions. The conversion to segmentation by bandwidth provides a suitable regulatory environment for the transition to newer technologies. There are emission types that do not necessarily fall neatly into a sub-band division by maximum bandwidth, such as DSB AM, but that should continue to be accommodated.

A modification of station control procedures is proposed to eliminate the origination of communications by stations under automatic control.

PROPOSED RULE CHANGES

Part 97 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulation is proposed to be amended as follows:

Section 97.109(e) is amended to read as follows:

§97.109 Station control.

(a)...

*****

(e) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission on bands above 28.0 MHz. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled.

Section 97.119 is amended to read as follows:

§ 97.119 Station identification.

*****

(b)...

(1) By a CW or MCW emission. When keyed by an automatic device used only for identification, the speed must not exceed 20 words per minute;

(2) By a phone emission in the English language where a bandwidth of at least 3 kHz is authorized. Use of a standard phonetic alphabet as an aid for correct station identification is encouraged;

(3) By the same emission as used for the communication.

(4) Deleted.

Section 97.221 is amended to read as follows:

§ 97.221 Automatically controlled stations transmitting RTTY or data emissions.

*****

(b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on 10 m or shorter wavelength bands.

(c) On 160 through 12 meters, a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission may operate under automatic control except it is not permitted to initiate a communication.

(1) Deleted.

(2) Deleted.

Section 97.305 is amended to read as follows:

§ 97.305 Authorized emission types.

(a) An amateur station may transmit a CW emission on any frequency authorized to the control operator except for the frequencies in the 60 m band.

(b) A station may transmit a test emission on any frequency authorized to the control operator for brief periods for experimental purposes. Continuous test transmissions are authorized in the segments 51-54 MHz, 144.1-148.0 MHz and on all bands above 222 MHz.

(c) Pulse emissions are permitted on all bands authorized to the control operator above 902 MHz except in the 23 cm and 3 cm bands.

(d) SS emissions are permitted on all bands authorized to the control operator above 222 MHz.

(e) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, a station may transmit any emission on any frequency authorized to the control operator subject to the following bandwidth limitations:

Wavelength band	Frequencies authorized	Maximum bandwidth	Standards See §97.307(f) paragraph:
160 m	Entire band	3 kHz	(1) (2)
80 m	3.50-3.58 MHz	200 Hz	(3)
80m	3.58-3.65 MHz	500 Hz	(3)
-do-	3.65-3.725 MHz	3 kHz	(3) (4)
75 m	3.725-4.00 MHz	3 kHz	(1) (2)
60 m	5.1675 MHz	2.8 kHz	See §97.401(c)
-do-	5.332, 5.348, 5.368, 5.373 and 5.405 MHz	2.8 kHz	See §97.301(s)
40 m	7.00-7.035 MHz	200 Hz	(3)
-do-	7.035-7.075 MHz	500 Hz	(3)
-do-	7.075-7.10 MHz	500 Hz	(3) (6)
-do-	7.10-7.125 MHz	3 kHz	(3) (4)
-do-	7.125-7.30 MHz	3 kHz	(1) (2)
30 m	10.10-10.12 MHz	200 Hz
-do-	10.12-10.15 MHz	500 Hz
20 m	14.00-14.065 MHz	200 Hz
-do-	14.065- 14.10 MHz	500 Hz
-do-	14.10-14.15 MHz	3 kHz	(4)
-do-	14.15-14.35 MHz	3 kHz	(1) (2)
17 m	18.068-18.10 MHz	200 Hz
-do-	18.10-18.11 MHz	500 Hz
-do-	18.11-18.168 MHz	3 kHz	(1) (2)
15 m	21.00-21.08 MHz	200 Hz	(3)
-do-	21.08-21.15 MHz	500 Hz	(3)
-do-	21.15-21.20 MHz	3 kHz	(3) (4)
-do-	21.20-21.45 MHz	3 kHz	(1) (2)
12 m	24.89-24.92 MHz	200 Hz
-do-	24.92-24.93 MHz	500 Hz
-do-	24.93-24.99 MHz	3 kHz	(1) (2)
10 m	28.00-28.05 MHz	200 Hz
-do-	28.05-28.3 MHz	500 Hz
-do-	28.3-28.5 MHz	3 kHz	(1) (2) (5)
-do-	28.5-29.0 MHz	3 kHz	(1) (2)
-do-	29.0-29.7 MHz	16 kHz
6 m	50.0-50.1 MHz	200 Hz
-do-	50.1-50.3 MHz	3 kHz
-do-	50.3-54 MHz	100 kHz
2 m	144.0-144.1 MHz	200 Hz
-do-	144.1-144.3 MHz	3 kHz
-do-	144.3-148.0 MHz	100 kHz
1.25 m	219-220 MHz	100 kHz
-do-	222-225 MHz	-	(7)
70 cm	Entire band	-	(7)
33 cm	Entire band	-	(7)
23 cm	Entire band	-	(7)
13 cm	Entire band	-	(7)
9 cm	Entire band	-	(7)
5 cm	Entire band	-	(7)
3 cm	Entire band	-	(7)
1.2 cm	Entire band	-	(7)
6 mm	Entire band	-	(7)
4 mm	Entire band	-	(7)
2.5 mm	Entire band	-	(7)
1 mm	Entire band	-	(7)
-	Above 300 GHz	-

Section 97.307(f) is amended to read as follows:

§ 97.307 Emission standards.

*****

(f) The following standards and limitations apply to transmissions on the frequencies specified in § 97.305(e) of this Part.

(1) The 3 kHz maximum bandwidth does not apply to double-sideband amplitude-modulated phone A3E emissions which are limited to --26 dB bandwidths of 9 kHz.

(2) Independent sideband transmissions are limited to a total --26 dB bandwidth of 6 kHz.

(3) A station having a control operator holding a Novice or Technician Class operator license may only transmit a CW emission using the international Morse code.

(4) Phone emissions are not permitted.

(5) A station having a control operator holding a Novice Class operator license may only transmit a CW emission using the international Morse code, data or phone emissions J3E and R3E.

(6) Phone and image emissions with a maximum bandwidth of 3 kHz may be transmitted only by stations located in ITU Regions 1 and 3, and by stations located within ITU Region 2 that are west of 130° West longitude or south of 20° North latitude.

(7) No specific bandwidth limitations apply except that the entire --40 dB bandwidth must be within the allocated band to meet the requirements of §97.307(d).

(8) through (13) Deleted.

Section 97.309 is amended to read as follows:

§ 97.309 RTTY and data emission codes.

(a) Where authorized by §97.305(e) and §97.307(f) of this Part, an amateur station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using published digital codes for the purpose of facilitating communications.

(b) Where authorized by §97.305(e) and 97.307(f) of this Part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using published digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication. Transmissions between amateur stations of different countries shall not be encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except for control signals exchanged between earth command stations and space stations in the amateur-satellite service.

(c) When deemed necessary by the FCC's Enforcement Bureau to assure compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must:

(1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code;

(2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed; and

(3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital communications transmitted.