The leagues "experimentation" argument is completely without support. ZERO.
Why?
1. The rest of the ham world (for the most part) has no 300 baud limit.
2. If there were theoretical modes of interest as the leagues suggests,
which could not be utilized in the US due to the arcane and outdated 300
baud limit, this experimentation would take place in other region.
3. But excluding two areas (digital voice and high-throughput stuff like the
email guys are wanting), all of the modes which have gained interest of the
ham community are weak signal, very narrow band stuff like the PSK and JT65
variants.
I will concede that there is one possible counter to this line of
reasoning - which is that the experimentation could only be done in the US.
But the league is surely not suggesting that, are they?
The lack of interesting modes being promoted in regions without the 300 baud
limit proves that once you get away from the email-over-hf guys' interest
with wideband modes (P4) - and if you don't include the DV stuff - then what
you are left with on the development interests which are weak signal and
narrow band in orientation.
Then again, I don't support 11708 which (according to the ARRL) means I'm
not educated, or at least misunderstand the essence of the League's
brilliant proposal.
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Terry
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:35 AM
To: DFWcontest@yahoogroups.com ; ctdxcc@kkn.net ; rtty@contesting.com
Cc: 'Hal Kennedy' ; 'Dan White' ; 'Joe Subich, W4TV' ; 'Ted Rappaport'
Subject: Re: [RTTY] [DFWcontest] Please forward this far and wide,its
important if you care about CW and RTTY
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your inputs.
First, the 300 baud symbol rate that the ARRL is asking to be removed is
something that protects us. The ARRL is looking at this from the side of
WinLink which is simple as they want to run Pactor 4 in the US. If
RM-11708 is approved, there is a wideband digital waveform call STAAG that
has 40 db superiority over narrow band waveforms that would be legal. Do
we really want a waveform with 40 db superiority running roughshod over
narrow band CW /RTTY?
Second, sub bands division is used to separate waveforms that are not
compatible. That why 2.8 KHz SSB operations are at the top of the band
and narrow band CW/digital is at the bottom of the band. If RM-11708 had
provisions for a sub band that protected traditional CW/data and a sub band
for wider 2.8 KHz bandwidth digital experimentation that would go a long way
in solving some of the issues.
If the ARRL had allowed outside technical experts help steer RM-11708, then
the above concerns plus several others would have been addressed.
Unfortunately they opted to form the steering committee with NO input from
anyone representing narrow band interests and the result is that RM-11708 is
one sided and caters to a "special interest group".
Terry AB5K
From: DFWcontest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DFWcontest@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Dan Bates
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 9:06 AM
To: DFWcontest@yahoogroups.com; ctdxcc@kkn.net; rtty@contesting.com
Cc: 'Ted Rappaport'; 'Dan White'; 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'Hal Kennedy'
Subject: RE: [DFWcontest] Please forward this far and wide, its important if
you care about CW and RTTY
I'm sorry, but I have disagree with these arguments. Only the US is stuck
with this archaic baud rate rule.
The other thing I must laugh about is cw advocates embracing the RTTY
community. RTTY is every bit as wide and annoying to a cw station as any
proposed 2.8KHz digital signal. The reason RTTY falls under the 300 baud
limit is that it is so inefficient in use of bandwidth.
Amateur radio has always been on the forefront of technology and a leader in
exploring new techniques and propagation modes. To try and limit the HF
bands 300 baud is similar to trying to maintain spark gap.
The new proposed rule will allow us to experiment with some exciting new
modulation modes and keep amateur radio a leader in the progression of radio
communications.
Oh, by the way, I'm a CW Ops member and run a CW class every week.
Dan n5tm
From: Terry [mailto:ab5k@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 7:31 AM
To: ctdxcc@kkn.net; DFWcontest@yahoogroups.com; rtty@contesting.com
Cc: 'Ted Rappaport'; 'Dan White'; 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'Hal Kennedy'
Subject: [DFWcontest] Please forward this far and wide, its important if you
care about CW and RTTY
CTDXCC, RTTY reflector and DFW Contesters,
Many of us know Ted, N9NB, and his contributions to amateur and the
engineering world. For those who may now know Ted, here is a link to a
page on the ARRL site where you can get a feel for Ted's credentials.
Here is a quote off the ARRL site: "Ted Rappaport is one of the most
renowned professors in communications engineering and is widely known from
his textbooks, research centers and products,".
<http://www.arrl.org/news/ted-rappaport-n9nb-named-recipient-of-ieee-educati
<http://www.arrl.org/news/ted-rappaport-n9nb-named-recipient-of-ieee-educati
%0bon-award>
on-award>
Ted is right on target and RM-11708 needs to be STOPPED! The ARRL is WRONG
and ramming this thru the FCC without any input from low bandwidth CW and
Data users. If you have not filled a FCC comment please do so. There is
still a short time left.
Thanks,
Terry AB5K
-----Original Message-----
From: CTDXCC [mailto:ctdxcc-bounces@kkn.net] On Behalf Of Ted Rappaport
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 9:30 PM
To: CTDXCC
Subject: Re: [CTDXCC] CTDXCC Digest, Vol 136, Issue
Please forward this far and wide, its important if you care about CW.
I hope all who care about the future of CW and RTTY will file thoughtful,
rationale comments AGAINST RM 11708. We desperately need more AGAINST
comments to overturn this dreadful proposed rulemaking!
It takes only a couple of minutes, and here are clear instructions how to do
it:
http://64.128.19.154/RM11708.pdf
In making this flawed rule making, the ARRL is essentially declaring war on
all CW and RTTY users of the HF bands, and it is as if they filed a law suit
against incumbent hams in that spectrum at the FCC.
This is a pure and simple spectrum grab at the expense of CW and RTTY hams.
First, the ARRL did not seek broad approval, this is a back room dealing and
a rule making that attepts to strip a decades-old protection on
human-to-human protection of CW and RTTY/PSK31 users. 300 baud is ESSENTIAL
to keeping a bandwidth containment on all low band users. The RM 11708
attempts to STRIP this vital protection, and make the baud rate UNLIMITED.
Then, they proposed to widen the bandwidth for any data signal to 2.8 kHz,
wider than today's SSB Signals! Today's CW and RTTY signals are no more than
a few hundred HZ wide......now the ARRL wants to fill the lower HF bands
with data users that are 2.8 kHz wide!
If we don't speak out against this, at once, we are in jeopardy of losing
our FCC-protected status, as the 300 baud limit protects narrowband users,
like CW and RTTY operators, from harmful interference! And the low bands
will be populated with machine-to-machine automated stations that do not
properly identify themselves or listen bvefore transmiting! Ham radio as we
love it and know it will be gone! WE MUST SPEAK OUT!
Please spread the word- we MUST get hundreds of more AGAINST comments at the
FCC if we want to stop this thing and enjoy CW in our retirement years! I
have done the analysis, I have tried talking logic to the league. I have
done much expert witnessing in my career on spectrum.
THIS IS A PURE AND SIMPLE SPECTRUM GRAB BY THE ARRL AND WE MUST SPEAK OUT
AGAINST THE ARRL AND AGAINST RM 11708 IF WE CARE ABOUT USING CW AND RTTY!
Please spread the word, we must get public comments on file. This is not the
time to sit back and do nothing! Educate yourself- See that the ARRL has put
up a red herring, where they 'make up" some bogeyman wideband signal that
could not exist practically, only to strip away the 300 baud limit that
protects the narrowband CW and RTTY users.
Please speak out, we must save our hobby if we care about enjoying the human
to human modes of CW and RTTY.
Ted
__._,_.___
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/conversations/messages/4538;
_ylc=X3oDMTJxdjllMGhqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA
2MzEwOARtc2dJZAM0NTM4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTA0MDY3Nw--?act=re
ply&messageNum=4538> Reply via web post
.
<mailto:n5tm@katytx.net?subject=RE%3A%20%5BDFWcontest%5D%20Please%20forward%
20this%20far%20and%20wide%2C%20its%20important%20if%20you%20care%20about%20C
W%20%20and%20RTTY> Reply to sender
.
<mailto:DFWcontest@yahoogroups.com?subject=RE%3A%20%5BDFWcontest%5D%20Please
%20forward%20this%20far%20and%20wide%2C%20its%20important%20if%20you%20care%
20about%20CW%20%20and%20RTTY> Reply to group
.
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=
X3oDMTJmMHR2cjloBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEw
OARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzOTkwNDA2Nzc-> Start a New Topic
.
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/conversations/topics/4537;_y
lc=X3oDMTM1dTJudHJ2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2M
zEwOARtc2dJZAM0NTM4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTA0MDY3NwR0cGNJZAM0N
TM3> Messages in this topic (2)
_____
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmczZxNTM4BF
9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEwOARzZWMDdnRsBHNsaw
N2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzOTkwNDA2Nzc-> Visit Your Group
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMnExNGplBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkA
zc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEwOARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTA0M
DY3Nw--> Yahoo! Groups
. <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> Privacy .
<mailto:DFWcontest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
Unsubscribe . <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> Terms of
Use
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=76109386/grpspId=1705063108/msgI
d=4538/stime=1399040677>
<http://y.analytics.yahoo.com/fpc.pl?ywarid=515FB27823A7407E&a=1000131032227
9>
__,_._,___
_______________________________________________
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
|