[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[Jim W7RY]

I sent a simple note to my director asking why the Board did this and 
didn't receive a response.

Nothing new here.

73
Jim W7RY

>> On 11/20/2013 6:01 PM, Kai wrote:
>> I think that discussion should center around what the BW limit
>> shjould be for digital signals. The answer will likely be something
>> between 2200 Hz and 2800 Hz, because signals as wide as 2200 Hz are
>> already permitted. It's good to discuss this.
> The discussion needs to extend *far* beyond hair-splitting between
> 2200 Hz and 2800 Hz.  The discussions should include:
>
> 1) limits on the so called "semi automatic" operations that fire up
>    wherever and whenever they are called without any consideration
>    of other activity - activity that the calling station can not
>    hear.
> 2) limits on total occupied bandwidth - particularly in heavily used
>    (and shared) bands like 1.830-1.845, 3.570-3.600 MHz, 7.030-7.090
>    MHz, 10.125-10.150 MHz and 18.100-18.110 MHz - bands on which just
>    a few 2.5 KHz wide signals could dominate the entire "RTTY band"
> 3) If symbol rates are to be eliminated, so should the band limits
>    for "digital" operation and signals with greater occupied bandwidth
>    should be placed with other signals of similar occupied bandwidth.
> 4) requirements that all digital transmissions with more than 300 Hz
>    occupied bandwidth be identified in clear text using CW, ITA5 (170
>    Hz shift), or PSK31
> 5) requirements that stations engaged in automatic and "semi-automatic"
>    operation maintain a *listed* telephone whereby the licensee can be
>    notified of interference.  a requirement that such interference be
>    be terminated within 10 minutes of placement of a call - not 10
>    minutes of retrieving a message.
> 6) requirements that any station using a digital modulation with
>    occupied bandwidth greater than 300 Hz include a functioning
>    "occupied channel detector" that prevents transmission if there is
>    *any* activity within 150% of the occupied bandwidth.  Disabling
>    any "channel busy" detector would be presumptive evidence of
>    "intentional" interference.
> 7) requirements that all transmissions be in plain text - data
>    compression, if used, must be completely transparent so that
>    any portion of any transmission be readable in isolation.
>
> The most important question is whether an occupied bandwidth greater
> than 500 Hz is even justified for amateur digital operation.  This
> is after all the *amateur* service - not an alternative to the
> internet or commercial common carriers.
>
> 73,
>
>    ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>> On 11/20/2013 6:01 PM, Kai wrote:
>> Thanks for the w8ji link. That was very instructional. But be careful.
>> The signal occupied bandwidth (what we presume to want to regulate) does
>> not always relate to the noise bandwidth (which relates to
>> sensitivity).  JT65 fro example sports a noise bandwidth of about 2.71
>> Hz (yes, Hertz), but an occupied bandwidth of 175 Hz. Furthermore when
>> operated as Joe Taylor intended at HF, you want to allow 2-4 kHz for
>> JT65 users because multiple simultaneous users in the the 2-4kHz BW are
>> decoded and presented to the user, just like in PSK31 (62 Hz/user).
>>
>> The ARRL proposal does nothing more than to remove the archaic and no
>> longer relevant baud rate definitions of digital modes. They opted
>> instead to propose regulating digital signals by a maximum BW, and chose
>> 2.8 kHz to harmonize with the FCC/NTIA regulatikon already in effect for
>> the 60m channels.
>>
>> There are no changes to RTTY (which occupies 250 Hz per user at 170 Hz
>> shift and 45.45 baud - there are wider RTTY ham signals in use as well)
>> or how RTTY is used in contests.
>>
>> Today under the present baud rate restrictions we already hear digital
>> signals as wide as 2,200 Hz in HF (PACTOR) and all is still right with
>> the world.
>>
>> The Canadian ham regulators already limit all emissions in HF bands
>> below 28 MHz to 6kHz without regulating anything further about mode.
>>
>> I think that discussion should center around what the BW limit shjould
>> be for digital signals. The answer will likely be something between 2200
>> Hz and 2800 Hz, because signals as wide as 2200 Hz are already
>> permitted. It's good to discuss this.
>>
>> 73,
>> Kai, KE4PT
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 11/20/2013 9:42 AM, David Cole wrote:
>>> Al,
>>>
>>> Thank you for that link!  I now understand the dangers.
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>