[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

 >  the CW guys/gals have no skin in this game.

The CW guys/gals *absolutely* have skin in this game and *don't*
let them forget that.  The bands where "RTTY, data" are currently
authorized are what we know as "the CW bands" - typically the bottom
100 to 150 KHz of each of the "traditional" HF amateur bands and the
bottom 40 KHz of the newest ("WARC") HF bands.

If the top 20 to 30 KHz of those bands - the area that has been used
for RTTY and other *narrow band* digital data based on bandplans and
tradition - is overrun with 2.8 KHz auto-responding digital systems,
how long do you think it will be before RTTY and other digital signals
*move down the band* into "CW territory"?   One can already see some
indication of "moving down the band" in international RTTY and PSK31
activity on 40 meters ... does anyone think it will not happen on 20
meters or 17 meters?   What happens when the first RTTY DXpedition
fires up on 14.040 listening up because 14.080-14.090 is filled by
*only three or four* auto-responders at maximum bandwidth.  Has anyone
noticed the auto-responders that already show up regularly between
14.050 and 10.070?

Everyone may want to enlist the aid of their CW friends to say ARRL
is wrong.  Eliminate the symbol rate limit if you want and replace it
with a *bandwidth limit* but make that limit 300 to 500 Hz - consistent
with "traditional radioteleprinter bandwidth" for more than 35 years.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 11/22/2013 3:32 PM, Ben Antanaitis - WB2RHM wrote:
> All,
>
> I have received some =-O email asking why I am 'worked up' about
> something that covers 'all  the HF bands'?  And 'surely we can share
> bands, so everyone gets their opportunity to operate as they choose'.
>
> Well, I guess what 'grinds my gears'>:-o is the extremely focused attack
> on the very small portions of the HF bands that we, the digitally
> enabled, are permitted to operate our numerous modes of 'small BW
> digital' signals.......  and it is the PSK31, JT9, Olivia, Packet,
> Winmor,... anymode where you send discrete bits, etc., as well as the
> Steam-RTTYers, who use 170Hz/45.45Baud signalling (I personally like
> that designation, being an avid reader of Steam-Punk SF), who will bear
> the brunt of the 'wide-banders' and the products of their operations.
>
> A Focused Attack? you ask, incredulously. Yes, a very focused attack,
> indeed.  Please carefully read Section/paragraph 13 of the actual ARRL
> Request for Rulemaking (not the very public press releases):
> ... Specification of a 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth maximum would not
> prohibit any emissions that are now being commonly conducted, and the
> limit would apply only to data modes in the subbands where RTTY and data
> are authorized emission types and not to either analog or digital
> telephony emissions.(emphasis added)  While specification of any maximum
> bandwidth for HF data emissions, and if there is to be one, what it
> should be are both reasonably debatable topics, ARRL suggests that on
> balance, a maximum bandwidth for data emissions in the HF spectrum
> should be 2.8 kilohertz.
> Therefore, the foregoing considered, ARRL, the national association for
> Amateur Radio, respectfully requests that the Commission issue a Notice
> of Proposed Rule Making at an early date, proposing to modifY Sections
> 97.305 and 97.307 of the Commission's rules as specified in the Appendix
> attached hereto, so as to delete all references to symbol rate from
> Section 97.307(t) of the Commission's rules; to create a conforming
> amendment to Section 97.305(c) of the rules;
> So, strategically, what do I think this means (I could be wrong, but I
> worked for IBM for 30 yrs and am familiar with inter-office
> politics)....  the CW guys/gals have no skin in this game. The AM/FM/SSB
> guys/gals have no skin in this game....   Where do digital-folk think we
> are going to garner any support from worried, busy people with family
> medical coverage as their first priority and very little time to spare
> for 'those techno-geeks with their beeps and boops and deedle-deedles'.
> The ARRL has very cleverly and deviously carved out this battle to
> separate "us" from any sympathetic help from busy and mostly
> disinterested hams who don't deedle-deedle "them".
>
> This will be a debate between the 'digital old timers' (I guess they saw
> the results of JARTS exchanges.. HI HI)  and the power-brokers of the
> ARRL.  Minimalize and marginalize the opponent, and the FCC will follow,
> led by the nose, by the league of extraordinary gentlemen of Newington.
>
> Have YOU told any of your ham friends about this discussion thread? Or
> the ramifications of the proposed rulemaking?  Have YOU told any of the
> great radio clubs (PVRC, CDXA, SECC, etc) of the very real threat to
> many weekends of contesting fun?  Maybe others should be worried by this
> cavalier frequency grab by the ARRL.
>
> What side band will these new modes use? LSB or USB?  How far can they
> park a signal from the PSK 'band', or even from the egde of the CW
> segments, before a KW can blank out an entire band for hours of a whole
> contest or DXpedition window?  I don't know..... that's why I ask these
> questions.
>
> Enough ranting.......
>
> 73,
>
> Ben - WB2RHM
>
>
>
>
>
> 73,
> Ben - WB2RHM, WB2RHM/4, WB2RHM/2
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>