[RTTY] uh, what about spectrum?

[Mike]

Hello Jeff,

Reading the August 10, 2004, "Planned ARRL Petition to the FCC to 
Regulate Subbands by Bandwidth", and it says:
    * At the present time, RTTY and data emissions are permitted by 
FCC rule throughout the HF "CW subbands." It is only through 
compliance with "gentlemen's agreements" that RTTY and data signals 
are not heard in the parts of the band that are generally used for 
CW. The proposed rules would limit bandwidth in these "CW subbands" to 200 Hz.
    * Bandwidth in the existing "RTTY/data subbands" would be limited 
by rule to either 500 Hz or 3 kHz. In the following subbands where 3 
kHz would be permitted, phone emissions would specifically not be 
permitted: 3650-3725, 7100-7125, 14100-14150, and 21150-21200 kHz. 
The reason for this is to encourage the development of higher-speed 
data communications in these subbands by preventing them from 
becoming de facto "expanded phone bands." The prior ARRL proposal to 
expand some HF phone bands is included in the separate FCC Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 04-140, and is taken into account 
in these new proposals.
    * "Amateurs would not be required to be able to measure the 
bandwidth of their signals. The proposed bandwidths are more than 
sufficient for "clean" signals using the traditional HF modes. We 
have had regulation by bandwidth for certain data operations for many 
years without fomenting great debate over whether or not a particular 
signal was legal. Measurement would only arise as a potential problem 
for those who try to push the edge of the envelope.
>        * At the present time, RTTY and data emissions are permitted 
> by FCC rule throughout the HF "CW subbands." It is only through 
> compliance with "gentlemen's agreements" that RTTY and data signals 
> are not heard in the parts of the band that are generally used for 
> CW. The proposed rules would limit bandwidth in these "CW subbands" to 200 Hz.
>        * Bandwidth in the existing "RTTY/data subbands" would be 
> limited by rule to either 500 Hz or 3 kHz. In the following 
> subbands where 3 kHz would be permitted, phone emissions would 
> specifically not be permitted: 3650-3725, 7100-7125, 14100-14150, 
> and 21150-21200 kHz. The reason for this is to encourage the 
> development of higher-speed data communications in these subbands 
> by preventing them from becoming de facto "expanded phone bands." 
> The prior ARRL proposal to expand some HF phone bands is included 
> in the separate FCC Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 
> 04-140, and is taken into account in these new proposals.
>        * Amateurs would not be required to be able to measure the 
> bandwidth of their signals. The proposed bandwidths are more than 
> sufficient for "clean" signals using the traditional HF modes. We 
> have had regulation by bandwidth for certain data operations for 
> many years without fomenting great debate over whether or not a 
> particular signal was legal. Measurement would only arise as a 
> potential problem for those who try to push the edge of the envelope."
  Since I use 170 Hz shift (bandwidth) and the DX stations I have 
contacted in and out of contests are also 170 Hz shift, the ARRL 
proposal should not impacting my operation in the 3520 - 3525 KHz 
area and below 7030 KHz and below 3580 KHz.  Am I not reading it 
correct?  Is there another ARRL or FCC document/proposal I should be 
looking at?

At 05:36 PM 1/15/2006, Jeff Stai WK6I wrote:
>At 11:53 AM 1/15/2006, Jeff Stai WK6I wrote:
> >What's absurd is that we are apparently losing 115KHz of spectrum that
> >we all regularly use for RTTY contacts on 40 and 80, including the
> >ability to ever again have a simplex contact with a JA on 80 - and
> >thus setting ourselves up for the absurd chaos of split operations
> >that makes 40 phone such a joy (assuming of course that the DX cares
> >to offer split).
> >
> >Is anyone else planning to comment on the spectrum loss?
>
>I see I need to clarify...
>
>1. During the recent RU I made contacts between 3520-3525, which is
>the only place that JAs may operate RTTY on 80. If the ARRL proposal
>is adopted, you won't be making simplex JA contacts on 80 during RTTY
>contests because you can't go below 3580.
>
>2. My 80m antenna is tuned as a compromise between roughly 3500 and
>3600, to allow CW and RTTY JA contacts at the low end, and RTTY at the
>high. Obviously the closer I am to 3550 the better. I made a LOT of
>contacts running at 3576 for this reason. I have to think others are
>in a similar situation.
>
>3. When that mult you need in the CQWW RTTY is running at 7030, if the
>ARRL proposal is adopted you won't be working them. Not legally, anyway.
>
>4. Yes, I understand that we can now operate RTTY all the way to the
>top of each band, so that net spectrum has been gained. However, that
>unreachable mult won't be working 7230 any time soon. The rest of the
>world is not changing.
>
>Yes, I agree that we can run split. Yes, I can retune my 80m antenna
>more often. But the fact is we are giving something up, and I don't
>see a reason to.
>
>cheers - jeff wk6i
>
>
>--
>Jeff Stai               jds at twistedoak.com
>Twisted Oak Winery      http://www.twistedoak.com/
>Rocketry Org. of CA     http://www.rocstock.org/
>Amateur Radio           WK6I ~ Calaveras County, CA
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>RTTY mailing list
>RTTY at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

         73,
         Mike, K4GMH