It's not just the RTTY contest community that has a stake here -
any RTTY operator, digital DXer, PSK31 operator, JT65/JT9 operator
PSK31/63 operator and CW operator/contester will be directly impacted.
Consider the extreme crowding currently effecting digital modes on 80
and 40 meters ... now what happens when the literally of dozens PACTOR
nodes currently showing frequencies on 80 and 40 expand from 500 Hz to
2.8 KHz bandwidth. If one has any doubt about the potential magnitude
of the problem, take time to find and read the study documenting the
problem with interference from PACTOR 4 on 30 meters in Europe from
done by NRRL.
SSB contesters should not sit idle ... consider the situation with
D-STAR. D-DTAR is "arguably" legal on HF today. What happens if
Icom were to put its considerably economic clout behind an effort
to make the 6 KHz digital voice mode widely used on HF and pressure
ARRL to file *another* petition to remove any perceived impediment to
D-Star operation on any "voice" frequency between 1.8 and 29.7 MHz.
It would take only a few dozen dedicated D-Star operators and a few
"HF nodes" to completely screw up the phone bands during major phone
contests - CQWW, CQWPX, ARRL DX, SS, RadioSport, etc. or a major
Dxpedition.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:lists@subich.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 2:24 PM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] MINUTES OF ARRL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
> 4.2.4. Comments on the ARRL's petition, RM-11708, continue to be
> received by the FCC past the deadline, most of them brief comments of
> support but with some opposing comments that reflect a
> misunderstanding of the existing rules and the very limited effect
> that replacement of the existing symbol rate limit with a bandwidth
> limit would have on current HF operation.
K1 continues to lie through his teeth ... He signed these minutes so it
is clear that he wrote or is responsible for them.
Comments on RM-11708 are relatively evenly split between those who want
continued protection of narrow band modes from wideband interference
and the cookie cutter "we want PACTOR 4" stuff. There is very little
critical thinking among those comments supporting the ARRL's proposal
while there is a lot of clear thought expressed by those who raise very
legitimate concerns about increased interference to traditional narrow
band emissions which represent more than 99% of all users who will be
impacted by this move.
N9NB has made comments opposing this boondoggle based on sound academic
work showing that an increase in permitted baud (symbol) rate increases
the power spectral density in a fixed bandwidth. Replacing the 300
baud limit with a fixed 2.8 KHz bandwidth limit makes those high baud
rate data signals even more of an interference issue than traditional
SSB or AM phone. Of course, the interference from phone to narrow
bandwidth modes is exactly what the Commission and the general amateur
population have sought to avoid for at least 80 years.
If the comments of *anyone* reflects "a misunderstanding of the existing
rules," the history of those rules and the reason they exist it is the
constant lie being presented as "fact" by K1ZZ - someone who should know
better and be acting in the best interests of amateur radio not
promoting the narrow interests of two directors.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [RTTY] MINUTES OF ARRL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:09:23 -0400
From: Ted Rappaport <tedrappaport@verizon.net>
To: 'Joe Subich, W4TV' <lists@subich.com>, <rtty@contesting.com>
All members of The RTTY contest group must, if they care about the
future of our hobby, should individually submit comments to the FCC at
the "comment" portion of RM 11708 at the FCC website. This is our only
hope of shutting RM-11708 down. The ARRL has abandoned our interests and
is working directly against us. Only the grass roots ham community can
stop this with public filings at the FCC website (still open for a few
days more), and by writing the list of all Exec. Committee officials at
the ARRL. Time is of the essence.
Here are the mailing lists to ARRL board members and other interested
parties. We must get active individually and make each of our voices
heard, loudly, that RM 11708 is an end run on the protections of CW and
RTTY!
Joe, please forward this if it doesn't come through the reflector (I am
not a member). Thanks es 73 ted
Dan White <hdwhite@charter.net>; Craigie, Kay, N3KN <n3kn@verizon.net>;
David Woolweaver <k5rav@ix.netcom.com>; Stratton, John, N5AUS
<jrs@hamradio.us.com>; Rick Roderick <k5ur@aol.com>; Terry Gerdes
<ab5k@hotmail.com>; aa5au@bellsouth.net; aflowers@frontiernet.net;
K3LR@K3LR.com; n9nc@earthlink.net; Edgar, William ( Dir, AT)
<n3llr@arrl.org>; Abernethy, Tom, W3TOM <w3tom@arrl.org>; Isely, Dick,
W9GIG <dick@pobox.com>; Carlson, Kermit, W9XA <kcarlson@arrl.org>;
Widin, Gregory, (Dir, DK) <gwidin@arrl.org>; Olson, Kent (Vice
Dir,Dakota) <ka0ldg@arrl.org>; k1zz@arrl.org; tedrappaport@verizon.net
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|