RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

To: "rtty-contesting.com" <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
From: Ben Antanaitis - WB2RHM <wb2rhm@wb2rhm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:16:07 -0500
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
All,

Here are the responses I received, in July, from K1ZZ, and W4PWF my Roanoke Division director.

Ben - WB2RHM


From: Ben Antanaitis - WB2RHM [mailto:wb2rhm@wb2rhm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:33 PM
To: w4pwf@arrl.org; N2ZZ@arrl.org; n2cop@arrl.org
Subject: RE: "asking the FCC ?to apply to all amateur data emissions below 29.7 MHz the existing bandwidth limit, per §97.303(h), of 2.8 kHz.?



Per the ARRL news:
***************************************************************************************
On the motion of ARRL West Gulf Division Director Dr David Woolweaver, K5RAV, on behalf of the Ad Hoc Symbol Rate Rule Modernization Committee, the Board directed ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, to prepare a Petition for Rule Making with the FCC seeking to modify §97.307(f) to delete all references to symbol rate. The Petition would ask the FCC ?to apply to all amateur data emissions below 29.7 MHz the existing bandwidth limit, per §97.303(h), of 2.8 kHz.?

The committee determined that the current symbol rate restrictions in §97.307(f) ?no longer reflect the state of the art of digital telecommunications technology,? and that the proposed rule change would ?encourage both flexibility and efficiency in the employment of digital emissions by amateur stations.? The Ad Hoc Symbol Rate Rule Modernization Committee was dissolved with the thanks of the Board.
***************************************************************************************

Gentlemen,

I hope that the process on this idea is not too far down the road to TURN BACK.

In my opinion, what you are proposing will have the potential to destroy the data segments that we now use in the HF bands......... eg PSK is structured, and voluntary frequency segmented, to allow many many QSOs to operate in a vastly smaller piece of spectrum than 2.8KHZ per signal. RTTY operators can chat, work DX, and Contest in something around 300Hz bandwidth and they operate in their 'piece of the spectrum pie in each HF band...........

Now you are thinking of requesting that frequency hogging 2.8KHz, uncontrolled data signals, of any nature, spread out over the entire DATA Mode spectrum of the HF bands....... blasting away the possibilities for hundreds of CW/PSK/Hell/RTTY/MSK operators.......

If you follow through on this ill-advised and ill-concieved plan, you might as well cancel any ARRL PSK, RTTY, or CW contests you current sponsor........... The entry numbers in these contests, DXing activities, and rag-chewing in these band segments and modes has steadily grown, not diminished, over recent years............ Why propose something that has the oh so easy potential to 'jam' and 'crowd-out' current spectrum users????

I protest this idea most strongly, and will file comment against the proposal, with the FCC, should it get that far.

73,

Ben Antanaitis  -  WB2RHM

ARRL Life Member
ARRL 50 Year Member




***********************************************************************
From: "Sumner, Dave,  K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org>
Subject: RE: "asking the FCC "to apply to all amateur data em
        issions below 29.7 MHz the existing bandwidth limit,
        per §97.303(h), of 2.8 kHz."
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:22:28 -0400
To: "Ben Antanaitis - WB2RHM" <wb2rhm@wb2rhm.com>,
        "Craigie, Kay (President)" <n3kn@arrl.org>
Cc: "Bodson, Dennis (Dir, Roanoke)" <w4pwf@arrl.org>

Ben, I will forward your comments to your Director, Dennis Bodson, W4PWF.

However, you should welcome a limit being placed on the bandwidth of HF digital data signals. At the present time there is no bandwidth limit whatsoever on digital data signals as long as the 300 baud limit is observed. It is legal today for a signal with multiple carriers, each with multiple-bit-per-symbol modulation, to be considerably wider than 2.8 kHz. The 2.8 kHz value accommodates digital emissions now in common use while putting a cap on the bandwidth that a station could occupy in the future.

73,
David Sumner, K1ZZ
Chief Executive Officer, ARRL



****************************************************************************************

From: "Dennis Bodson" <bodsond@verizon.net>
To: "'Ben Antanaitis - WB2RHM'" <wb2rhm@wb2rhm.com>,    <w4pwf@arrl.org>,
        <N2ZZ@arrl.org>,        <n2cop@arrl.org>
Subject:
 RE: "asking the FCC "to apply to all amateur data emis
        sions below 29.7 MHz the existing bandwidth limit, per
        §97.303(h), of 2.8 kHz."
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:45:53 -0400

Ben:

Thank you for your input relating to the subject topic. Dave Sumner has responded to you. His response is accurate. I would like to call to your attention Dave?s column in the September 2013 issue of QST. You should be receiving it within the next 30 days. This article presents, in my opinion, a complete and in-depth explanation of how we got to where we are today and why it is appropriate to move forward.

Regards,

Dennis Bodson, W4PWF
ARRL Director
Roanoke Division
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>