[RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital BW

[Kai]

Hi Salvo,
With all respect, and I don't want to criticize you but, when you say "ARRL body 
it's the same that denied the existence of RTTY by itself for the DXCC" you are 
of course referring to an extremely narrow and specific definition of "RTTY", 
namely "170 Hz shift 45.45 baud 1 start bit + 5 bit Baudot code + 1,1.5 or 2 two 
stop bit RTTY" [let's call it "ham-RTTY"]  that many but not all hams favor. 
I've checked the ARRL DXCC rules and there is no prohibition against you earning 
DXCC using just "ham-RTTY", except it will be labeled "Digital". There is also 
no specific DXCC awards for AM phone, or FM phone, or SSB phone or QSOs in 
Esperanto only. It is "phone". Magically only CW retains its unique status.  How 
is "RTTY" defined in the Italian ham rules and regulations?

To be fair, RTTY has a much broader definition in telecommunications, even 
ham-telecommunications,  than just "ham-RTTY". The FCC in the USA, quotes ITU-R 
recommendations when using the term RTTY in a quite broad sense:

§ 97.309   RTTY and data emission codes.
(a) Where authorized by §§ 97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of the part, an amateur 
station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using the following specified 
digital codes:
(1) The 5-unit, start-stop, International Telegraph Alphabet No. 2, code defined 
in ITU-T Recommendation F.1, Division C (commonly known as "Baudot").
(2) The 7-unit code specified in ITU-R Recommendations M.476-5 and M.625-3 
(commonly known as "AMTOR").
(3) The 7-unit, International Alphabet No. 5, code defined in ITU-T 
Recommendation T.50 (commonly known as "ASCII").
(4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code 
specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical 
characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, 
for the purpose of facilitating communications.

In fact RTTY just means "Radioteletype,  a telecommunications system consisting 
of two or more teleprinters using radio as the transmission medium.
The term radioteletype describes the entire family of systems connecting two or 
more teleprinters over radio, regardless of alphabet, link system or modulation."

There are no RTTY sub-bands, or more correctly, there are no statutory ham-RTTY 
subbands in the USA, but there are gentleman's agreements on use of ham 
frequencies. In the USA hams do a good job of self-regulation beyond what the 
regulations broadly impose on us. CW (in the USA) may be use anywhere at any ham 
frequency, but we've all agreed that the bottom 50-70 kHz of most ham bands is 
where the CW action takes place ... perhaps a bit higher during contests or 
Field Day. The PSK crowd set their dials to 70 kHz above the bottom band edge in 
most bands,and occupy the 3 kHz above that. The JT65 folks usually confine their 
signals to a 3 kHz range from 76 kHz and up, above the bottom band edge. No 
regulations, just self-imposed discipline.  I find most ham-RTTY folks between 
80 and 95 kHz above the band lower edge, except in contests when they can be 
found above and below that range. Some bands are a bit different, but there are 
no statutory sub-bands for ham RTTY.

Now back to the ARRL BOD proposal. They want to remove the language that limits 
digital systems to "300 baud", and want to restrict digital BW to no more than 
2.8 kHz (up from just over 2 kHz that some of the currently used digital 
modulations occupy). That's it! Less regulation!

With very best regards,
Kai, KE4PT


On 7/27/2013 1:06 PM, iw1ayd - Salvatore Irato wrote:
> No Paul.
> Let me strongly disagree with you, even if what you wrote is something that 
> could be written under "good common sense".
> Unfortunately not common nor good are under metrics shared, so widely, in the 
> same way by anyone of us.
> Let the wide open signals get into and you will see anything, whatever, in any 
> place of those. It's just a question of time. Some rules are needed well in 
> place to prevent spreading of common sense measured with "variable metrics". 
> Did you trust that anybody would take care of any speed limit without any 
> enforcement?
> Don't aspect that anyone would respect the others without a clever and 
> efficiently enforced rule.
> Look at what is happening with JT65, PSK and ROS and all other so called 
> digital modes all over the RTTY sub bands. What started as a gentleman 
> agreement  is by now a perfect right to do anything onto theirs so politely 
> assigned segments. I know that I am mixing FCC rules and international regions 
> band plans but that is it. I am simply ashamed for any and each DX expedition 
> that use 18.100 MHz for the split TX QRG, PSK and JT signal continue to go 
> over and over jamming the DX station responding to the the other half of the 
> world. There is no way to come back for some hours, no way to understand others.
> I'd never been on your side of the pond, but from this side any signals would 
> arrive quite the same. There are no walls that work forever to segregate RF 
> signal around US. Then it will also became more politic and IARU will shortly 
> fire out just another band plan. Similar to the criminal 50MHz band plan we 
> have here now, RTTY is well inside a sub band for FM signals at 50.600 Hz.  I 
> have my school time telecommunications manuals on fire. It's unbelievable. 
> (here we have different chunks on 50MHz, I is only 50-51 for example)
>
> Compromises are the rules by now, but compromises have not to clash so badly 
> with the laws of physics. As anyone could understand as cars crash may 
> happen.  Driving and spitting one compromise over another it's not a good 
> politic, it's just a swimming exercise. Giving anything to anyone is how 
> compromises are made. Best practices are on books, life is different. Anyway, 
> anybody could write another book of best practices, why not.
>
> Sorry to disagree Paul. Believe me I would have preferred a lot to be agreeing 
> with you.
>
> BTW, that BoD ARRL body it's the same that denied the existence of RTTY by 
> itself for the DXCC?
> Those Borg  of the BoD that wrote: resistance is futile, just Digital is enough.
>
> But, anyway tell me if I could sign somewhere to avoid this mischief.
>
> Hope that my poor English wouldn't be too hard to be read.
>
>                   73 de iw1ayd Salvo
>
> PS that's show me as not only here we have those so comprehensive peoples.
>
> On 27/07/2013 18:00, rtty-request at contesting.com wrote:
>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 22:39:49 -0400
>> From: Paul Stoetzer<n8hm at arrl.net>
>> To:rtty at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital
>>     BW
>> Message-ID:<51F332F5.10706 at arrl.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> My opinion is that we should have the flexibility to do whatever we can
>> do within a 2.8 kHz bandwidth (including multiple carrier modes, spread
>> spectrum, etc.). I think voluntary band plans is good enough. Nobody is
>> going to transmit a 2.8 kHz wide digital signal at 14.025 MHz.
>>
>> There are many other countries that regulate on bandwidth and generally
>> let hams do whatever they want in a normal SSB channel width. We don't
>> see chaos from that!
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Paul, N8HM
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>