[CQ-Contest] Fwd: Re: [CTDXCC] Why everyone and anyone who likes/wants CW and RTTY needs to know

[Richard Thorne]

Forwarded with permission of Ted as he does a much better job of putting 
ink to ether than I do.

I've commented against RM-11708.

I'm curious what the contest community thinks as this will have an 
impact on the cw/rtty sub bands?

Rich - N5ZC



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [CTDXCC] Why everyone and anyone who likes/wants CW and 
RTTY needs to know
Date: 	Fri, 12 Aug 2016 21:35:55 -0400
From: 	Ted <tsrwvcomm at aol.com>
To: 	Richard Thorne <rthorne at rthorne.net>



I don't know that community, but you sure can forward  it - it's very 
important.


Sent from smartphone, please excuse typos

On Aug 12, 2016, at 8:36 PM, Richard Thorne <rthorne at rthorne.net 
<mailto:rthorne at rthorne.net>> wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
> I'm curious, have you attempted to get this information to the CQ 
> Contest reflector.  Are you getting any feed back from other contester's?
>
> I sure appreciate you driving this subject matter.
>
> Hope all is well.
>
> Rich - N5ZC
>
> On 8/12/2016 11:03 AM, Ted Rappaport N9NB via CTDXCC wrote:
>> Hi y’all:
>> Life is short, and this great hobby has enough room for everyone!
>> Pactor, DX, Winlink, SSB, CW, RTTY, etc...... We can all coexist, but 
>> the HF spectrum is very limited, and sadly the FCC is about to sign 
>> into law a really grave error that will completely disrupt CW/RTTY if 
>> you don’t read and file comments at the FCC about NPRM 11708 and WT 
>> 16239. We must write to both our ARRL officials at all levels, as 
>> well as file public comments at the FCC.
>> The FCC is about to make this officially law, but is taking last 
>> ditch comments from now (up until October 5th or so) and then during 
>> a one month “Reply to Comments” phase. this is our LAST CHANCE to 
>> really get the base of CW/RTTY users to write in to ARRL and FCC 
>> officials to modify this law.... NPRM RM 11708 cannot be repelled at 
>> this point, only modified, unless a miracle occurs and ARRL recinds 
>> it – not likely unless tens of thousands of us write to ARRL 
>> officials while also filing comments.
>> Here is what RM 11708 will enable, if it is passed into law as the 
>> FCC is proposing in its NPRM 11708 published on July 28, 2016. Note 
>> the FCC ignored ARRL’s request for a 2.8 kHz bandwidth to replace the 
>> 300 baud limit, and instead is proposing an **unlimited** bandwidth 
>> limit with no baud rate limit. Unfortunately, neither the ARRL or FCC 
>> have recognized the resulting interference that will occur to the 
>> narrowband CW and RTTY users, and have never once considered a 200 Hz 
>> bandwidth emission limit on the lower 50 kHz and 500 Hz emission 
>> bandwidth limit on the lower 100 kHz of every HF band (That is what 
>> is needed for protection, and we must write in by the tens of 
>> thousands!!! To ARRL and to FCC! See footnote 37in their July NPRM, 
>> very short shrift given to this argument!). Here is what will happen 
>> if CW/RTTY apathy continues:
>>
>> 1. SSB and voice operations will be freely allowed in all the 
>> CW/Data/RTTY segments of HF with unlimited bandwidth,as long as the 
>> signals are digitized into data first. This opens up the CW/RTTY 
>> lower end HF bands to digitized voice using 12.5khz c4fm stations, 
>> since the FCC has not proposed a bandwidth limitation. And this is 
>> not a conspiricy theory, its real.
>>
>> 2. If the rule passes without any bandwidth limit, or with the ARRL’s 
>> suggested 2.8 kHz bandwidth limit on the low end, Pactor will be 
>> permitted and conversations will be encrypted as part of the 
>> protocol.  And if there were to be a way to listen in, it’s going to 
>> require a the purchase of a Pactor 4 modem which is not cheap.  
>> Meaning you have no ability to identify the call sign of a station 
>> short of engaging in a Pactor 4 based conversation. No way for OO’s 
>> to find offending station since no CW id is needed.
>>
>> 3. A lot of the Automatic Data stations (the auto repeaters that are 
>> already causing great QRM) are tied in with the watercraft and 
>> boating crowd. Which means the stations would ring the coastline 
>> using new data services in the CW/Data part of the band to log into 
>> Facebook, check weather, and make dinner reservations.  So unless you 
>> are beaming north, you are going to be pointing toward one of those 
>> stations.
>> 4. At about 2.4 Khz per station for Pactor 4, and with MANY more 
>> stations active (the P4 speeds make email via HF a lot faster and 
>> less painful, which will drive more users after this NPRM is 
>> legalized), it won’t take much to swamp all the traditional RTTY 
>> segment.  That pushes the RTTY guys down into the top of the CW 
>> segment. And not to even mention digitized voice signals that will be 
>> allowed there, too!
>> No matter how you slice it, that means trouble for the RTTY operators 
>> up front, and more congestion for the CW bands as a result.  Of 
>> course the SSB guys having defeated essentially the same proposal 10 
>> years ago (ARRL TRIED TO PASS RM 11306 in 2005, but rescinded it in 
>> 2007 because the SSB operators made enough noise to get the ARRL to 
>> pull it from the FCC consideration---- CW and RTTY apathy has failed 
>> to make enough noise, and now this is about to become law). Now, it 
>> has gone too far, and CW/RTTY people have not been heard, and this is 
>> about to remove the enjoyment of our bands forever! PLEASE GET 
>> ACTIVE. THIS IS REAL. Please don’t take this lightly and do nothing, 
>> please get your CW/RTTY friends engaged. Read the NPRM!
>> Lets give Pactor 4 and Winlink its due at 100 kHz and above from the 
>> low end of HF, but lets also preserve the lowest 50 kHz for CW and 
>> lowest 100 kHz for RTTY by urgently requesting bandwidth limits that 
>> preserve CW and RTTY.
>> Tell your ARRL official and write in tothe FCC –we need tens of 
>> thousands of thoughtful responses!
>> 73 ted n9nb
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CTDXCC mailing list
>> CTDXCC at kkn.net
>> http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ctdxcc
>