Also a problem on 80m Joe, especially 3.590+.
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 8:27 PM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence
On 8/8/2016 7:27 AM, Jeff AC0C wrote:
Huh? Spend any time up above 14.090 and you can pretty quickly
realize the supposed "prevent interference" aspect is completely
absent with those stations starting up on your QRG pretty often.
You don't have to restrict yourself to above 14.090 ... it's common
on 40, 30 and 17 meters as well (probably 80 meters but I don't spend
a lot of time listening there).
§97.221 does not apply to non-US stations or the US WinLink lids who
set up remote stations off-shore and the scanning systems will answer
anyone, anywhere without regard to existing activity.
Again, the solution is to impose a 400 Hz bandwidth limit is the
portions of the amateur bands currently reserved for RTTY/DATA
(including 30meters) and a 2.7 KHz limit with a specific 6 KHz
exemption for traditional double sideband AM on the rest of the
amateur bands below 29.5 MHz.
400 Hz preserves the status quo in the RTTY/DATA bands and 2.7 KHz
is overdue in the rest of the HF allocations.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 8/8/2016 7:27 AM, Jeff AC0C wrote:
Huh? Spend any time up above 14.090 and you can pretty quickly realize
the supposed "prevent interference" aspect is completely absent with
those stations starting up on your QRG pretty often. And in the case of
pactor, that system just crushes a RTTY or CW underlying signal.
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
-----Original Message----- From: Matthew Pitts via RTTY
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 7:19 PM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence
A fine example of FUD, since neither the ARRL or FCC are changing 97.221
in any way, nor is it likely that any significant increase in
interference will result with "new" technologies already having a means
to prevent interference as part of their design.
Matthew Pitts
N8OHU
On August 7, 2016 8:14:31 PM EDT, Jim McDonald <jim@n7us.net> wrote:
From the SMC reflector.
73, Jim N7US
-----Original Message-----
From: SMC [mailto:smc-bounces@w9smc.com] On Behalf Of Mike Wetzel
Sent: August 07, 2016 18:38
To: smc@w9smc.com
Subject: [SMC] if you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence
From Dr. Ted Rappaport N9NB
Dear Colleagues:
If you believe, as I do, that the proposal to unregulate the bandwidth
of
data signals (like Pactor 4) in the lower HF portion of the spectrum is
dangerous for the hobby, both in the US and abroad, then please read
on as
we need your help. If you do not agree with me, or don't care about
this,
then feel free to delete and stop reading.
I ask that you PLEASE take action by filling public comments with the
FCC
regarding their recent RM 11708 proposed rulemaking in WT Docket No.
16-239
and RM-11708, and please forward this to every CW and RTTY enthusiast
you
know in ham radio, on every reflector, in every CW and RTTY club, both
in
the US and elsewhere, and urge them to also file comments with the FCC.
We
have less than 3 weeks to voice our opinion! It was not heard in
2014-2015.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE! There are less than 3 weeks during which the
FCC
will accept comments.
I am fearful and quite certain that RM 11708, as published in WT
Docket No.
16-239 , which the FCC is now seeking public comment on as a prelude to
enact its ruling, will terribly erode CW and RTTY on the HF bands in
its
current form. The ruling will allow PACTOR 4 and multi-tone modems on
any
frequency within the CW/RTTY frequencies on HF. This is worse than
allowing
SSB to operate throughout the CW/data sub bands, something the FCC has
never
allowed. The FCC is proposing an unlimited bandwidth for data signals
in the
lower HF bands (the ARRL asked for 2.8 kHz-- the bandwidth of SSB---
which
was still bad - and the FCC proposal is even worse). I would urge all
of you
write in to object to RM 11708 and to ask that the FCC place a 500 Hz
bandwidth limit all data transmission bandwidths such as Pactor, multi
tone
data modems, and other experimental data modes on all HF bands within
the
lowest 75 or 100 kHz region of each HF band. Japan has something
similar. If
we don't generate large support from hams to scale back the FCC
proposal,
and put a bandwidth cap in some portion of the lower HF bands, these
monster
QRMers of unlimited bandwidth will be allowed to operate anywhere in
the
CW/RTTY lower HF bands, and they will lawfully fire up on your CW or
RTTY QS
when you are least expecting it.
See below how the proponents of RM 11708, including my friend Tom
Whiteside,
are launching an aggressive letter-writing campaign for "pro" comments
to be
filed at the FCC to allow Pactor 4 and other wideband multi-tone modems
to
operate anywhere in the CW/RTTY spectrum, without a segregation of the
band.
The public filing period ends in a few weeks, so we must write now to
offer
opposition to the Commission. The need for WinLink/Pactor data
emergency
communication on HF is being used as one of the arguments for expanding
the
data bandwidth. See the other arguments below. I would urge CW and
RTTY
enthusiasts to review the arguments for and against RM 11708, see the
public
comments filed from March 2014 to today, and please be moved to
quickly to
write about your opposition to the newly proposed regulation just
released
by the FCC (It can be viewed here):
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0728/FCC-16-9
6A1.pdf
Please see Tom's email below on how to file a comment, but I would urge
you
to read the FCC proposal and file comments *against* the FCC's proposed
rulemaking. You can see the ballet box is again be flooded for the
expanded
data privileges in the past week - there are only 20 days to file
comments.
If this ruling is enacted, and the FCC is leaning that way, this will
come
at a cost to CW and RTTY . See these comments already filed:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?sort=date_disseminated,DESC&proceedi
ngs_name=RM-11708
Unfortunately, in the FCC proposed ruling issued over a week ago, the
Commission appears to have ignored ALL comments made by hams after the
initial 30 day comment period back in late 2013. During that one month
period, there was a 95% "pro" letter writing campaign by over 800
people --
It was only after the CW and RTTY enthusiasts woke up in March of 2014
that
public comments became overwhelmingly negative against RM 11708.
Unfortunately, the FCC has apparently ignored all of those comments, so
new
comments need to be filed on the FCC;s recent ruling.
If you care about CW and RTTY, please file comments against the ruling,
to
preserve some sanctuary for narrowband data (having less than 500 Hz
bandwidth), the way the largest ham country (Japan) has done to ensure
no
QRM to CW and RTTY enthusiasts.
Thanks for considering.
Best 73 ted n9nb
Winlink Global Radio Email for Disasters or Emergency Preparedness
communications. Group
1 Message
Digest #4406
1
Comments on RM-11708 - time to get those comments in! by "Tom
Whiteside"
n5tw
Message
1
Comments on RM-11708 - time to get those comments in!
Fri Aug 5, 2016 2:36 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Tom Whiteside" n5tw
As you have heard on this reflector, the FCC has amended the ARRL filed
RM-11708 and is now seeking comments on this. It is critical that we
add our
supporting comments during this period and the process below is a step
by
step on how to do so.
I'd suggest something simple - please make it clear that you support
the
amended proposal - these responses are going to be tallied at least at
the
first level by clerks so be clear! In my filing, I emphasized the clear
gain
in efficiency with the elimination of the archaic symbol rate and sited
currently not legal Pactor 4's ability to double the throughput in the
same
bandwidth as Pactor 3 and that this would bring us on par with the rest
of
the world.
Use your own words - form letters will be seen as such.
And thanks for your important support! Instructions on filing below:
Tom Whiteside N5TW
=====================
IMPORTANT MESSAGE: Time is running out for comments supporting RM-11708
to
the FCC, which would remove the symbol rate limitation from FCC rules,
and
allow hams to use Pactor 4 modems in the USA. If the proposed rule
change
fails this time, it will be years before we have another chance.
It is very easy to submit a comment. Please do. You don't have to say
much
other than you think it's a good idea, and that you support it.
Here are the steps to submit a comment.
1. Go to <http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/
2. Select "Submit a Filing (Express)" from the list in the upper left
corner
of the screen.
3. In the topmost paragraph of the next screen, click "click here to
manually enter your docket number"
.
4. Enter RM-11708 as the "Proceeding Number". Enter your name, address,
and
type your comments in the bottom field.
5. Click "Continue";, and then click the "Confirm" button on the
summary
page it will display.
6. If everything goes properly, it will give you a submission
confirmation
number.
Here are the relevant points:
a. The proposed change does not alter the bandwidth limits or the
frequencies available for digital use, so no new frequency space is
being
used. It has no negative impact on the Ham spectrum.
2. The use of Pactor 4 simply makes the use of existing bandwidth more
efficient, so additional traffic can be passed without allocating new
frequencies.
3. The further development of even faster protocols in the same
bandwidth
limitations depends on the success of this rulemaking
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|