Forwarded with permission of Ted as he does a much better job of putting
ink to ether than I do.
I've commented against RM-11708.
I'm curious what the contest community thinks as this will have an
impact on the cw/rtty sub bands?
Rich - N5ZC
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [CTDXCC] Why everyone and anyone who likes/wants CW and
RTTY needs to know
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 21:35:55 -0400
From: Ted <tsrwvcomm@aol.com>
To: Richard Thorne <rthorne@rthorne.net>
I don't know that community, but you sure can forward it - it's very
important.
Sent from smartphone, please excuse typos
On Aug 12, 2016, at 8:36 PM, Richard Thorne <rthorne@rthorne.net
<mailto:rthorne@rthorne.net>> wrote:
Hi Ted,
I'm curious, have you attempted to get this information to the CQ
Contest reflector. Are you getting any feed back from other contester's?
I sure appreciate you driving this subject matter.
Hope all is well.
Rich - N5ZC
On 8/12/2016 11:03 AM, Ted Rappaport N9NB via CTDXCC wrote:
Hi y’all:
Life is short, and this great hobby has enough room for everyone!
Pactor, DX, Winlink, SSB, CW, RTTY, etc...... We can all coexist, but
the HF spectrum is very limited, and sadly the FCC is about to sign
into law a really grave error that will completely disrupt CW/RTTY if
you don’t read and file comments at the FCC about NPRM 11708 and WT
16239. We must write to both our ARRL officials at all levels, as
well as file public comments at the FCC.
The FCC is about to make this officially law, but is taking last
ditch comments from now (up until October 5th or so) and then during
a one month “Reply to Comments” phase. this is our LAST CHANCE to
really get the base of CW/RTTY users to write in to ARRL and FCC
officials to modify this law.... NPRM RM 11708 cannot be repelled at
this point, only modified, unless a miracle occurs and ARRL recinds
it – not likely unless tens of thousands of us write to ARRL
officials while also filing comments.
Here is what RM 11708 will enable, if it is passed into law as the
FCC is proposing in its NPRM 11708 published on July 28, 2016. Note
the FCC ignored ARRL’s request for a 2.8 kHz bandwidth to replace the
300 baud limit, and instead is proposing an **unlimited** bandwidth
limit with no baud rate limit. Unfortunately, neither the ARRL or FCC
have recognized the resulting interference that will occur to the
narrowband CW and RTTY users, and have never once considered a 200 Hz
bandwidth emission limit on the lower 50 kHz and 500 Hz emission
bandwidth limit on the lower 100 kHz of every HF band (That is what
is needed for protection, and we must write in by the tens of
thousands!!! To ARRL and to FCC! See footnote 37in their July NPRM,
very short shrift given to this argument!). Here is what will happen
if CW/RTTY apathy continues:
1. SSB and voice operations will be freely allowed in all the
CW/Data/RTTY segments of HF with unlimited bandwidth,as long as the
signals are digitized into data first. This opens up the CW/RTTY
lower end HF bands to digitized voice using 12.5khz c4fm stations,
since the FCC has not proposed a bandwidth limitation. And this is
not a conspiricy theory, its real.
2. If the rule passes without any bandwidth limit, or with the ARRL’s
suggested 2.8 kHz bandwidth limit on the low end, Pactor will be
permitted and conversations will be encrypted as part of the
protocol. And if there were to be a way to listen in, it’s going to
require a the purchase of a Pactor 4 modem which is not cheap.
Meaning you have no ability to identify the call sign of a station
short of engaging in a Pactor 4 based conversation. No way for OO’s
to find offending station since no CW id is needed.
3. A lot of the Automatic Data stations (the auto repeaters that are
already causing great QRM) are tied in with the watercraft and
boating crowd. Which means the stations would ring the coastline
using new data services in the CW/Data part of the band to log into
Facebook, check weather, and make dinner reservations. So unless you
are beaming north, you are going to be pointing toward one of those
stations.
4. At about 2.4 Khz per station for Pactor 4, and with MANY more
stations active (the P4 speeds make email via HF a lot faster and
less painful, which will drive more users after this NPRM is
legalized), it won’t take much to swamp all the traditional RTTY
segment. That pushes the RTTY guys down into the top of the CW
segment. And not to even mention digitized voice signals that will be
allowed there, too!
No matter how you slice it, that means trouble for the RTTY operators
up front, and more congestion for the CW bands as a result. Of
course the SSB guys having defeated essentially the same proposal 10
years ago (ARRL TRIED TO PASS RM 11306 in 2005, but rescinded it in
2007 because the SSB operators made enough noise to get the ARRL to
pull it from the FCC consideration---- CW and RTTY apathy has failed
to make enough noise, and now this is about to become law). Now, it
has gone too far, and CW/RTTY people have not been heard, and this is
about to remove the enjoyment of our bands forever! PLEASE GET
ACTIVE. THIS IS REAL. Please don’t take this lightly and do nothing,
please get your CW/RTTY friends engaged. Read the NPRM!
Lets give Pactor 4 and Winlink its due at 100 kHz and above from the
low end of HF, but lets also preserve the lowest 50 kHz for CW and
lowest 100 kHz for RTTY by urgently requesting bandwidth limits that
preserve CW and RTTY.
Tell your ARRL official and write in tothe FCC –we need tens of
thousands of thoughtful responses!
73 ted n9nb
_______________________________________________
CTDXCC mailing list
CTDXCC@kkn.net
http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ctdxcc
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|