>This proposal was developed by *Winlink insiders* who hijacked the ARRL
> process. These self-serving individuals railroaded a recommendation
> through an ad hoc committee and the Board of Directors
Wow, now we're not only mispresenting the facts - finally we need the help
of some conspiracy theory.
Absurd.
Stan
On 25.11.2013 at 10:57 PM, "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com> wrote:
>
>> That's part of the problem. Without these limitations we can
>realize
> > modes nobody thought of till today.
>
>We don't *need* those wider bandwidth modes for either
>radioteletype
>(user to user) communications or amateur "data" (bulk transfer)
>uses.
>The *only value* of wider bandwidth signals is to carry more data -
>either digital voice or *commercial* data quantities. In the
>former
>case, digital voice belongs in the "voice, image" allocations and
>in
>the latter case, commercial data transfers *do not belong* in the
>amateur bands at all.
>
>> Nonsense. Ham density in many countries is much higher than in
>the
>> US. Even more when taken into account that most technicians are
>> active on VHF/UHF only.
>
>This is not an issue of "national density" - it is number of hams
>in
>total or number of users per KHz. There are more amateurs in the
>US
>than there are in Canada, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and South
>America *combined*. If even the same percentage of licensees were
>to
>use wide band data modes in the US as in the rest of the world, the
>horrendous level of interference from wideband data signals would
>more than double over night.
>
> > This all seems to be a private campaign of a few against
> > Winlink/Pactor rather than supporting the future of ham radio.
>
>No, this is all about the future of amateur radio. Do you want an
>amateur service that is about the amateurs and provides an
>opportunity
>for amateur to amateur communication or do you want an amateur
>service
>in which the amateur bands are used as conduits for low cost
>commercial
>data transfer - essentially another mobile service - dominated by
>one
>or two corporations?
>
> > This proposal was well defined by experts from ARRL with a more
>global
> > future oriented view helping experimenters to develop new modes.
>
>This proposal was developed by *Winlink insiders* who hijacked the
>ARRL
>process. These self-serving individuals railroaded a
>recommendation
>through an ad hoc committee and the Board of Directors without
>giving
>the general membership an opportunity to comment or provide
>opposing
>viewpoints.
>
> > That's ham radio!
>
>No, that's a corporate coup d'tat.
>
> > Support our league, guys.
>
>Support the Amateur Service - not corporate confiscation.
>
>73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>On 11/25/2013 4:18 PM, Stan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> have all been developed under the current bandwidth
>"limitations."
>>
>> That's part of the problem. Without these limitations we can
>realize
>> modes nobody thought of till today.
>>
>>> Co-existance has not been "proven in the rest of the world"
>as use
>>> of wider modes has been limited by the number of licensees in
>the
>>> rest of the world
>>
>> Nonsense. Ham density in many countries is much higher than in
>the
>> US. Even more when taken into account that most technicians are
>> active on VHF/UHF only.
>>
>>> Winlink and PACTOR III/IV are a blight on amateur radio and
>should
>>
>> This all seems to be a private campaign of a few against
>Winlink/Pactor rather
>> than supporting the future of ham radio.
>>
>> This proposal was well defined by experts from ARRL with a more
>global
>> future oriented view helping experimenters to develop new modes.
>> That's ham radio!
>> Support our league, guys.
>>
>> Stan
>> _________________________________________________________
>> On Nov 25, 2013, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>> It will just open the door to experiment and develop new modes -
>>> this is ham radio.
>>
>> The door is not closed to developing new modes. The most
>popular of
>> new modes, PSK31, JT65, JT9, and WSPR have all been developed
>under
>> the current bandwidth "limitations."
>>
>>> And the co-existance has been proven in the rest of the ham
>world
>> > where this is allowed since many years.
>>
>> Co-existance has not been "proven in the rest of the world" as
>use
>> of wider modes has been limited by the number of licensees in
>the
>> rest of the world and the general lack of significant usage
>for these
>> bandwidth hogging commercial traffic systems anywhere except
>the
>> automatic control sub-bands.
>>
>> Winlink and PACTOR III/IV are a blight on amateur radio and
>should
>> be made illegal in the same way as bandwidth wasting spark was
>made
>> illegal in the 1920s.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>> On 11/25/2013 4:11 AM, Stan wrote:
>>> Just for the records,
>>>
>>> If you won't follow the arguments of those 'experts' - you are
>also welcome to
>>> file a comment that you are perfectly fine with the proposal
>from our league.
>>>
>>> There're always naysayers but SSB was not the end of ham radio -
> the Internet
>>> was not the end of ham radio - 2.8kHz bandwidth will not be the
>end of RTTY.
>>>
>>> It will just open the door to experiment and develop new modes -
> this is ham
>>> radio.
>>>
>>> And the co-existance has been proven in the rest of the ham
>world where this
>>> is allowed since many years.
>>>
>>> Stan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 24, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>>
>>> > PACTOR III is *NOT* currently permitted under the rules.
>Its use has
>>> > been *overlooked* by enforcement organizations as it
>*absolutely* can
>>> > not be justified under the *dual standard* in 97.307(f)(3)
>which has
>>> > both 300 baud and 1000 Hz shift limits.
>>>
>>> That is not true Joe... please don't make that mistake in
>your FCC filing.
>>>
>>> At all SL levels, Pactor III's symbol rate is fixed at 100
>baud (yes, not even close to 300 baud). (Don't confuse Symbol Rate
>(baud rate) with data rate (bit rate)).
>>>
>>> Pactor III is not 2 tone FSK, so the FSK shift rule does not
>even apply (makes no technical sense since there is no frequency
>shift happening).
>>>
>>> Pactor 3 SL1 (the slowest rate) consists of two synchronous
>PSK signals (not FSK), that are separated by 840 Hz. 840 Hz is the
>maximum tone separation for Pactor 3 (if you want to apply the
>term "shift" to the signal). As more tones are added (SL2, SL3,
>etc), the tone separations become narrow, and at the narrowest,
>there are 18 tones, separated by 120 Hz from one another.
>>>
>>> Pactor 3 SL1, 2 and 3 uses binary PSK, and Pactor 3 SL4, 5,
>6 uses Quadrature PSK.
>>>
>>> It is much clearer if you go take a look with a panadapter
>or a waterfall, or if you can, in I/Q phase space.
>>>
>>> Pactor 3 SL1 looks like two broad indistinct tones that are
>840 Hz from one another, with a distinctive gap in between them.
>It is quite unmistakable once you see it on the waterfall.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Chen, W7AY
>>>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|