The new proposed rule will allow us to experiment with some exciting
new modulation modes and keep amateur radio a leader in the
progression of radio communications.
That's ARRL propaganda and completely untrue. The only thing is will
permit is a *commercial* protocol (PACTOR 4) with a significantly
stronger interference profile. This move would further codify the
separation of modes based on content rather than basing allocations
on modulation characteristics (bandwidth).
The *real* issue is 1) 2.8 KHz bandwidth and 2) symbol rates greater
than 300 baud.
RTTY, PSK31, JT65/JT9 *already* have a problem with 200 baud 2.4 KHz
wide PACTOR 3 signals wiping out five or six 300 Hz wide (RTTY) or
less signals. If the bandwidth is increased to 2.8 KHz and the baud
limit removed that problem *will become an issue for CW* as the PSK31,
RTTY and JT mode signals *move down the band* to escape.
PACTOR 3 at its widest mode has a crest factor (peak to average ratio)
of 5.7 dB. PACTOR 4 with its *1800 baud* modulation has a crest factor
of less than 4 dB - that means PACTOR 4 is 2dB *stronger* than the
typical PACTOR 3 QRM today. Other 2.8 KHz digital modes with higher
baud rates *have even lower crest factors* - N9NB can probably give us
a theoretical number but I would guess for a 2400 or 3200 baud STANAG
modulation the crest factor might be sub 3 dB or *double the strength*
of the already crippling PACTOR 3 crap.
*THERE IS NO NEED* for higher data rates in amateur service - ham radio
is not an alternative to commercial internet access. There is no need
to remove the current symbol rate limitation even if ARRL feels it is
necessary to add a bandwidth limitation for data modes to protect from
some hypothetical multi-tone modulation of the future.
Wideband data belongs with other wideband (voice, image, etc.) modes.
If wideband techniques are to be used, update the rules to allocate
based on necessary/occupied bandwidth, not emission type of the content
of the modulation. Take that step and the rules instantly become ready
for the future *and* permit amateur experimentation in mixed content
(digital voice with text/control/signalling) that are currently not
permitted because data (telemetry) is restricted to one area of the
spectrum and voice is restricted to another.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 5/2/2014 10:06 AM, Dan Bates wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have disagree with these arguments. Only the US is stuck
with this archaic baud rate rule.
The other thing I must laugh about is cw advocates embracing the RTTY
community. RTTY is every bit as wide and annoying to a cw station as any
proposed 2.8KHz digital signal. The reason RTTY falls under the 300 baud
limit is that it is so inefficient in use of bandwidth.
Amateur radio has always been on the forefront of technology and a leader in
exploring new techniques and propagation modes. To try and limit the HF
bands 300 baud is similar to trying to maintain spark gap.
The new proposed rule will allow us to experiment with some exciting new
modulation modes and keep amateur radio a leader in the progression of radio
communications.
Oh, by the way, I'm a CW Ops member and run a CW class every week.
Dan n5tm
From: Terry [mailto:ab5k@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 7:31 AM
To: ctdxcc@kkn.net; DFWcontest@yahoogroups.com; rtty@contesting.com
Cc: 'Ted Rappaport'; 'Dan White'; 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'Hal Kennedy'
Subject: [DFWcontest] Please forward this far and wide, its important if you
care about CW and RTTY
CTDXCC, RTTY reflector and DFW Contesters,
Many of us know Ted, N9NB, and his contributions to amateur and the
engineering world. For those who may now know Ted, here is a link to a
page on the ARRL site where you can get a feel for Ted's credentials.
Here is a quote off the ARRL site: "Ted Rappaport is one of the most
renowned professors in communications engineering and is widely known from
his textbooks, research centers and products,".
<http://www.arrl.org/news/ted-rappaport-n9nb-named-recipient-of-ieee-educati
<http://www.arrl.org/news/ted-rappaport-n9nb-named-recipient-of-ieee-educati
%0bon-award>
on-award>
Ted is right on target and RM-11708 needs to be STOPPED! The ARRL is WRONG
and ramming this thru the FCC without any input from low bandwidth CW and
Data users. If you have not filled a FCC comment please do so. There is
still a short time left.
Thanks,
Terry AB5K
-----Original Message-----
From: CTDXCC [mailto:ctdxcc-bounces@kkn.net] On Behalf Of Ted Rappaport
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 9:30 PM
To: CTDXCC
Subject: Re: [CTDXCC] CTDXCC Digest, Vol 136, Issue
Please forward this far and wide, its important if you care about CW.
I hope all who care about the future of CW and RTTY will file thoughtful,
rationale comments AGAINST RM 11708. We desperately need more AGAINST
comments to overturn this dreadful proposed rulemaking!
It takes only a couple of minutes, and here are clear instructions how to do
it:
http://64.128.19.154/RM11708.pdf
In making this flawed rule making, the ARRL is essentially declaring war on
all CW and RTTY users of the HF bands, and it is as if they filed a law suit
against incumbent hams in that spectrum at the FCC.
This is a pure and simple spectrum grab at the expense of CW and RTTY hams.
First, the ARRL did not seek broad approval, this is a back room dealing and
a rule making that attepts to strip a decades-old protection on
human-to-human protection of CW and RTTY/PSK31 users. 300 baud is ESSENTIAL
to keeping a bandwidth containment on all low band users. The RM 11708
attempts to STRIP this vital protection, and make the baud rate UNLIMITED.
Then, they proposed to widen the bandwidth for any data signal to 2.8 kHz,
wider than today's SSB Signals! Today's CW and RTTY signals are no more than
a few hundred HZ wide......now the ARRL wants to fill the lower HF bands
with data users that are 2.8 kHz wide!
If we don't speak out against this, at once, we are in jeopardy of losing
our FCC-protected status, as the 300 baud limit protects narrowband users,
like CW and RTTY operators, from harmful interference! And the low bands
will be populated with machine-to-machine automated stations that do not
properly identify themselves or listen bvefore transmiting! Ham radio as we
love it and know it will be gone! WE MUST SPEAK OUT!
Please spread the word- we MUST get hundreds of more AGAINST comments at the
FCC if we want to stop this thing and enjoy CW in our retirement years! I
have done the analysis, I have tried talking logic to the league. I have
done much expert witnessing in my career on spectrum.
THIS IS A PURE AND SIMPLE SPECTRUM GRAB BY THE ARRL AND WE MUST SPEAK OUT
AGAINST THE ARRL AND AGAINST RM 11708 IF WE CARE ABOUT USING CW AND RTTY!
Please spread the word, we must get public comments on file. This is not the
time to sit back and do nothing! Educate yourself- See that the ARRL has put
up a red herring, where they 'make up" some bogeyman wideband signal that
could not exist practically, only to strip away the 300 baud limit that
protects the narrowband CW and RTTY users.
Please speak out, we must save our hobby if we care about enjoying the human
to human modes of CW and RTTY.
Ted
__._,_.___
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/conversations/messages/4537;
_ylc=X3oDMTJxcms0bjdwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA
2MzEwOARtc2dJZAM0NTM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTAzNDkxMA--?act=re
ply&messageNum=4537> Reply via web post
.
<mailto:george.perkins@gmail.com?subject=Re%3A%20Please%20forward%20this%20f
ar%20and%20wide%2C%20its%20important%20if%20you%20care%20about%20CW%20%20and
%20RTTY> Reply to sender
.
<mailto:DFWcontest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Please%20forward%20this%2
0far%20and%20wide%2C%20its%20important%20if%20you%20care%20about%20CW%20%20a
nd%20RTTY> Reply to group
.
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=
X3oDMTJmOTMzdWwzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEw
OARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzOTkwMzQ5MTA-> Start a New Topic
.
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/conversations/topics/4537;_y
lc=X3oDMTM1dnRvY28zBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2M
zEwOARtc2dJZAM0NTM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTAzNDkxMAR0cGNJZAM0N
TM3> Messages in this topic (1)
_____
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMjdzbHBrBF
9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEwOARzZWMDdnRsBHNsaw
N2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzOTkwMzQ5MTA-> Visit Your Group
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNTZ0ODU5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkA
zc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEwOARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTAzN
DkxMA-->
. <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> Privacy .
<mailto:DFWcontest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
Unsubscribe . <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> Terms of
Use
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=76109386/grpspId=1705063108/msgI
d=4537/stime=1399034910>
<http://y.analytics.yahoo.com/fpc.pl?ywarid=515FB27823A7407E&a=1000131032227
9&js=no&resp=img>
__,_._,___
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|