The issue is that ARRL is not willing to ask the FCC to move
the "automatic control subbands) out of the heavily used RTTY
(and PSK, JT-mode, etc.) sub-bands and eliminate them completely
on the excessively narrow "WARC bands". That is what is needed
- along with mandating "channel busy detectors" for ACDS and
restricting *all* ACDS to the automatic control frequencies.
Until ARRL are willing to attack the licensed automatic QRM
generators the same way they attacked Mitre, ARRL Management
and the ARRL Board of Directors are just a bunch of hypocrites.
So far CW has been generally protected from automatic and wide-
band digital modes but if ARRL insists on their one-sided band-
plan and continues to push wide bandwidth data modes, I predict
the RTTY, PSK and JT operators will push back and move "down"
in frequency setting up some serious confrontations with CW.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 2015-03-01 9:33 PM, Jeff AC0C wrote:
The problem is that the League is saying they want input - and
presumably will respect the input received.
But so far, their actions have been to move forward with their
pro-email-via-HF position - regardless of the impact. This band plan
change gives the email over HF a full measure, extracted primarily from
the digital mode space.
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
-----Original Message----- From: Charles Morrison
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 7:21 PM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL Request for Member comment on Proposed HF Band
PlanChange
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:54:19 -0600
From: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>
To: RTTY contest group <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL Request for Member comment on Proposed HF
Band Plan Change
Message-ID:
<CANVAiQ-HLTtTx-
pm_EsoZXWvqhvf+WbcDg_hauNfgqkonzwUzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Ron Kolarik <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>
wrote:
> Fluorescent yellow vests, wacker lights and DHS grants would be a
fair
> guess and ARRL wants to hold the control strings.
>
The "emergency communications" angle, eh? Hadn't thought of that
because I assumed it was boat owners too cheap to use a commercial
service (as per 97.113(a)(5)). Hmm.
--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
This month's QST Forward from K1ZZ and the pending request for comments for
the ARRL's proposal for movement got a few friends of mine thinking. This
is one position from a fellow ham in Mississippi and his thoughts on the
proposal and how it will fit right into 11708. I'm passing this along to
the RTTY group and will be forwarding to some fellow CWOps leaders as well
as their email list should it be allowed.
From KY5U:
Reviewing the ARRL committee recommendations, we see the following:
1. HF Automatically Controlled Digital Stations are referred to by the
acronym ACDS in most of the report fostering obfuscation. The only ACDS
traffic on Amateur Radio is Winlink with email service for sailboats and
RVs
mostly. FCC rules mandate AR should not be used to replace paid services,
and paid services are available to deliver email over HF.
2. The main thrust of the proposal is to segregate Winlink (ACDS) traffic
from RTTY and Digital modes.
3. Segregation of modes results in a loss of spectrum for RTTY and data
mode
use.
4. On 80M, Winlink segregation results in loss of Phone spectrum of 50kHz.
15kHz of that spectrum would go to Winlink ACDS between 3600 and
3615kHz. It
is unclear why the proposal asks for 50kHz when the Winlink segment only
uses 15kHz of that. It seems clear that even with the Winlink segregated
space, the maximum reduction to the phone band should be a maximum of
20kHz,
not 50kHz.
5. Segregation includes 30, 17, and 12M which results in the loss of 5kHz
for RTTY and data modes.
6. Loss of spectrum by segregation results in a loss of 5kHz for RTTY and
data modes on 20M and the loss of 7kHz of spectrum on 20M.
The plan as recommended is nothing more than a Winlink land grab. It is
wrong because RTTY and Data modes lose spectrum on all bands except 80M. On
80M, the land grab steals from Phone spectrum. With the proposal on 80M,
the
stated purpose of helping the reduced CW/RTTY/Data spectrum is not achieved
as these modes gain nothing but the benefit of being rid of automatic
stations for Winlink. Also, by following the recommended plan, 50kHz taken
from phone is not necessary. At maximum 20kHz is needed to accomplish the
plan and given Winlink Pactor modems use 2.8kHz, the reduction in phone
spectrum should be 5kHz at most.
Finally, Pactor modems in latest form use 2.8kHz bandwidth. The minimum
bandwidth gained by Winlink ACDS is 5kHz. This seems to leave the door open
for future modems to use in access of 3kHz without further FCC approval.
Are
they suggesting Winlink needs 2ea. 1kHz guard bands? 2kHz lost to this?
While (except for 80M) these are recommended changes to a voluntary band
plan, I suggest RTTY, CW, and Narrowband Data modes don't volunteer.
Amateur
heritage is to try to honor the bandplan. It should not be changed or at
the
most, only 3kHz should be allotted for Winlink ACDS. For 80M, the requested
50kHz from the FCC is not needed. At best, only 20kHz is needed and given
the Pactor signals are 2.8kHz, only 5kHz is REALLY needed. Amateurs should
just say NO to Winlink.
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|