There is a certain logic to the reponse, but it shows a detachment from reality.
It is correct that there are no bandwidth limits today, but it takes two to
communicate. The symbol rate limitation implicitly contrains the bandwidth.
Lacking a concerted effort by malicious hams to devise a mode that uses 6kHz of
bandwidth to send at 300 baud, RTTY - arguably the least efficient digital mode
in common use - effectively occupies around 500 Hz.
Al
AB2ZY
________________________________________
From: RTTY [rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ben Antanaitis - WB2RHM
[wb2rhm@wb2rhm.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:16 AM
To: rtty-contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
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
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|