All,
I have received some =-O email asking why I am 'worked up' about
something that covers 'all the HF bands'? And 'surely we can share
bands, so everyone gets their opportunity to operate as they choose'.
Well, I guess what 'grinds my gears'>:-o is the extremely focused
attack on the very small portions of the HF bands that we, the
digitally enabled, are permitted to operate our numerous modes of
'small BW digital' signals....... and it is the PSK31, JT9, Olivia,
Packet, Winmor,... anymode where you send discrete bits, etc., as
well as the Steam-RTTYers, who use 170Hz/45.45Baud signalling (I
personally like that designation, being an avid reader of Steam-Punk
SF), who will bear the brunt of the 'wide-banders' and the products
of their operations.
A Focused Attack? you ask, incredulously. Yes, a very focused attack,
indeed. Please carefully read Section/paragraph 13 of the actual
ARRL Request for Rulemaking (not the very public press releases):
... Specification of a 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth maximum would not
prohibit any emissions that are now being commonly conducted, and the
limit would apply only to data modes in the subbands where RTTY and
data are authorized emission types and not to either analog or
digital telephony emissions.(emphasis added) While specification of
any maximum bandwidth for HF data emissions, and if there is to be
one, what it should be are both reasonably debatable topics, ARRL
suggests that on balance, a maximum bandwidth for data emissions in
the HF spectrum should be 2.8 kilohertz.
Therefore, the foregoing considered, ARRL, the national association
for Amateur Radio, respectfully requests that the Commission issue a
Notice of Proposed Rule Making at an early date, proposing to modifY
Sections 97.305 and 97.307 of the Commission's rules as specified in
the Appendix attached hereto, so as to delete all references to
symbol rate from Section 97.307(t) of the Commission's rules; to
create a conforming amendment to Section 97.305(c) of the rules;
So, strategically, what do I think this means (I could be wrong, but
I worked for IBM for 30 yrs and am familiar with inter-office
politics).... the CW guys/gals have no skin in this game. The
AM/FM/SSB guys/gals have no skin in this game.... Where do
digital-folk think we are going to garner any support from worried,
busy people with family medical coverage as their first priority and
very little time to spare for 'those techno-geeks with their beeps
and boops and deedle-deedles'. The ARRL has very cleverly and
deviously carved out this battle to separate "us" from any
sympathetic help from busy and mostly disinterested hams who don't
deedle-deedle "them".
This will be a debate between the 'digital old timers' (I guess they
saw the results of JARTS exchanges.. HI HI) and the power-brokers of
the ARRL. Minimalize and marginalize the opponent, and the FCC will
follow, led by the nose, by the league of extraordinary gentlemen of
Newington.
Have YOU told any of your ham friends about this discussion thread?
Or the ramifications of the proposed rulemaking? Have YOU told any
of the great radio clubs (PVRC, CDXA, SECC, etc) of the very real
threat to many weekends of contesting fun? Maybe others should be
worried by this cavalier frequency grab by the ARRL.
What side band will these new modes use? LSB or USB? How far can
they park a signal from the PSK 'band', or even from the egde of the
CW segments, before a KW can blank out an entire band for hours of a
whole contest or DXpedition window? I don't know..... that's why I
ask these questions.
Enough ranting.......
73,
Ben - WB2RHM
73,
Ben - WB2RHM, WB2RHM/4, WB2RHM/2
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|