[RTTY] BoD votes LoTW initiatives

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

 > The Board's proposal is to allow data bandwidths that are already in
 > legal use, and no more.

No, the Bord's proposal substantially increases bandwidth over systems
generally in use in the spectrum currently not allocated for phone and
image use.  In that spectrum, bandwidth in excess of 500 Hz has been
the exception - not the rule - and the wider bandwidth signals have
been *a continual problem* particularly those file/message transfer
emissions used with commercial bypass networks and semi-automatic
(response only) systems.

If the Bord wanted to do something *useful* as opposed to get in bed
with commercial interests, it would couple mandatory "channel in use"
detection with a *reasonable* bandwidth limit and again ask for
wider bandwidth digital allocation in the spectrum *already used*
for wideband operations - specifically 2.8 KHz phone and image.

Again, a single 2.8 KHz response only system without channel in use
detection that completely inhibits transmission if there is any
narrow band activity within the 2.8KHz bandwidth plus guard band
can completely wipe out *all* of the JT65A, JT9, or PSK31/PSK63
activity on a given band (I've seen it personally many times with
the current 1 KHz and 1.5KHz bandwidth emissions).  Similarly, a
single system that might set up shop at 14.026 could wipe out an
entire CW pile-up or a single system at 14.081 could easily wipe
out a RTTY pile-up.  Just a handful of such systems could render
an entire band useless for *all other* digital activity.

The ad hoc committee clearly had no concern for *any* other digital
activity beyond these message passing systems and obviously failed
to consult with other users of the band.


73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 7/25/2013 11:08 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
> Joe, I agree with you with respect to ROS because it deliberately
> spreads the signal over a wider bandwidth than the information being
> transmitted. Spread spectrum emissions use bandwidth-expansion
> modulation techniques to intentionally spread the information
> transmitted over a wide bandwidth. However, that's not what is happening
> with, for example, Clover-2000 and PACTOR-III.
>
> The Board's proposal is to allow data bandwidths that are already in
> legal use, and no more. If you don't want to see OFDM signals wider than
> those now in use you should support the proposal. If you want a narrower
> bandwidth specified you can argue for that, but bear in mind that the
> FCC declined to do so when it denied the N5RFX petition, RM-11392, in
> 2008:
> http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-denies-two-amateur-radio-em-petitions-for-r
> ulemaking-em
>
> 73,
> Dave K1ZZ
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:lists at subich.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:36 AM
> To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ
> Cc: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] BoD votes LoTW initiatives
>
>
> Dave,
>
> When multiple carriers are used to spread data over a range, they become
> a narrow band spread spectrum system (e.g ROS) which is illegal.  You
> are well aware of the issues with ROS.
>
> In any case 2.8 KHz bandwidth is completely inappropriate for the
> traditional "non-phone" bands and only serves to benefit the interests
> of WinLink/Sail Mail and other quasi commercial users of the amateur
> spectrum.  ARRL should be fighting these proposals and interests
> vigorously for should they succeed there will be absolutely no need for
> the Boards "Succession Committee" as amateur radio as we have known it
> for nearly
> 100 years will be destroyed by those commercial interests in a few short
> years.
>
> 73,
>
>      ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 7/25/2013 8:59 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
>> Joe, multi-carrier FSK is not spread spectrum and is entirely legal
> now.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:lists at subich.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:41 PM
>> To: rtty at contesting.com
>> Cc: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ
>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] BoD votes LoTW initiatives
>>
>>
>>> It is legal today for a signal with multiple carriers, each with
>>> multiple-bit-per-symbol modulation, to be considerably wider than 2.8
>
>>> kHz.
>>
>> Dave is full of it ... such a modulation would constitute a narrow
>> band spread spectrum signal (e.g. ROS) which would be illegal under
>> the rules.  This is nothing more than an another attempt to (1) find a
>
>> way to make PACTOR III legal in the US and (2) find a place for
>> digital voice operation where it does not face competition from analog
> voice.
>>
>> If ARRL succeeds in ramming this garbage past the FCC, it will spell
>> the end for CW and most traditional person to person digital modes.
>> It will be a bigger fiasco than *Incentive Licensing* and will likely
>> result in losses to amateur allocations similar to those in response
>> to the UPS "grab" for spectrum at 200 MHz for their ill-fated "narrow
>> band voice modulation" boondoggle.  Note UPS never built their system
>> but amateur radio in the US permanently lost access to 2 MHz between
>> 220 and 222 MHz.
>>
>> Allow 2.8 KHz digital data and commercial interests will be all over
>> wanting the suddenly valuable lower 100 KHz of EVERY amateur HF band.
>>
>> The ARRL Board of Directors can't seem to learn from history ... and
>> as they say, those who refuse to learn from history and condemned to
>> repeat it.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>>       ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>> On 7/24/2013 3:58 PM, Ben Antanaitis - WB2RHM wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> FYI----  Here is the response I received today, 7/24/2013 from K1ZZ,
>>> the CEO of the ARRL Re my strong objection to the ARRL 2.8KHz
>>> bandwidth proposal for digital modes in all the HF bands.........
>>>
>>> Here is the ARRL (but, we are working for your best interests)
>>> position...........
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Ben - WB2RHM, WB2RHM/4, WB2RHM/2
>>> ARRL Life Member
>>> ARRL 50 yr Member
>>> Active RTTY Contester
>>>
>>> *********************************************************************
>>> *
>>> ****************
>>>
>>> Ben, I will forward your comments to your Director, Dennis Bodson,
>> W4PWF.
>>>
>>> However, you should welcome a limit being placed on the bandwidth of
>>> HF digital data signals. At the present time there is no bandwidth
>>> limit whatsoever on digital data signals as long as the 300 baud
>>> limit
>>
>>> is observed. It is legal today for a signal with multiple carriers,
>>> each with multiple-bit-per-symbol modulation, to be considerably
>>> wider
>>
>>> than
>>> 2.8 kHz. The 2.8 kHz value accommodates digital emissions now in
>>> common use while putting a cap on the bandwidth that a station could
>>> occupy in the future.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> David Sumner, K1ZZ
>>> Chief Executive Officer, ARRL
>>> *********************************************************************
>>> *
>>> ****************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>
>>
>