[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[Steve Dyer]

I did receive a response from mine as well a willingness to listen.
73,
Steve
W1SRD
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty