[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
RLVZ at aol.com
RLVZ at aol.com
Sat Nov 23 13:43:34 EST 2013
I'm wondering if the ARRL solicits the comments of it's Members before
they file a Proposal with the FCC? I'm a long time ARRL Member and read QST
but I don't remember the ARRL asking it's Members for recommendations about
bandwidths. I would hope that the ARRL would seek comments from it's
Members, and then giver serious consideration to those comments, before the ARRL
files Proposals with the FCC on our behalf. (if they don't, we need to
get after them to do so)
73,
Dick- K9OM
In a message dated 11/23/2013 1:24:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rtty-request at contesting.com writes:
Send RTTY mailing list submissions to
rtty at contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
rtty-request at contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
rtty-owner at contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RTTY digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: ARRL attack on current RTTY users (Joe Subich, W4TV)
2. Re: ARRL attack on current RTTY users (Kok Chen)
3. Re: ARRL attack on current RTTY users (Don Hill AA5AU)
4. Re: ARRL attack on current RTTY users (Jeff Blaine)
5. Re: ARRL attack on current RTTY users (Kok Chen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 12:38:35 -0500
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
Message-ID: <5290E81B.1030107 at subich.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 11/23/2013 11:00 AM, Kai wrote:
> Summary:
> 1- The argument for 2800 Hz is not substantiated by the ARRL, even
> with reference to 60m.
> 2- Currently regs permit RTTY parameters for up to 1500 Hz BW
> ("Steam-RTTY" is 250 Hz).
> 3- Amateur practice must consider customary RECEIVE bandwidths for
> digital modes (not just TX) which may be impacted by wide-band
> transmissions
While amateur regulations permit theoretical bandwidths of up to
1500 Hz, amateur *practice* has overwhelmingly been to use transmit
bandwidths of up to 300 - 500 Hz. I am sure the overwhelming majority
of amateurs - both CW and digital operators - expect the transmit
bandwidth to be in that range and not "push the limits" of what is
permissible just as the overwhelming majority of voice and image
mode operators expect transmitted bandwidth to be in the 2.8 KHz
range - *not* 6 KHz for double-sideband full carrier AM, the 5 KHz
of *some* infantile ESSB operators, or 5+ KHz of splatter from some
over processed SSB and overdriven sweep tube amplifiers.
As to "receive bandwidth" - that is not, and should not be, regulated.
All of the "traditional bandwidth" modes *can* be received using narrow
filters (filters appropriate to the necessary bandwidth) if necessary.
However, it makes complete sense to limit transmit bandwidth to values
compatible with those actually used in order to minimize interference
in general due to the relatively narrow bands available for traditional
"RTTY, data" modes and their significant use - particularly 80, 30, and
17 meters where "traditional bandwidth" modes are limited to less than
30 KHz by the combination of band-plan and regulation and are subject
to significant interference from unattended auto-responding systems.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 11/23/2013 11:00 AM, Kai wrote:
> Hi Joe,
> I was referring to the future, not the past. We DO want to keep the door
> open to innovation. That's why I agree that getting the baud language out
> of the regs is good. But I also think that 2800 Hz BW is a bit over the
> top,
> except perhaps up where "image" is permitted. The number should be
> lower, but how low?
> Perhaps this forum can home in on it.
>
> Again, to keep what we can do today, (up to the 300 baud RTTY with up to
> 1000 Hz shift) would require a bandwidth of
> 300+1.2(1000) = 1500 Hz. THAT is the current RTTY teleprinter
> mode limit
> So, the question boils down to: do we want more restrictive regs?
>
> My point about how we use PSK and JT modes was a bit more subtle. One has
> to consider how those modes are used.
> Each of the TRANSMISSIONS are indeed below at least 500 Hz. But PSK and
> JT were
> designed to operating RECEIVING multiple users over a 2-4 kHz band.
> We all mostly cooperate and that system works. It is because of the
> need for 2-4 kHz "subbands" on RECEIVING the multiple PSK and JT
> signals, that
> we would NOT want band-hogging 2800 Hz signals in the non-phone
> non-image ranges.
> Common practice for PSK and JT type modes is to operate at low transmit
> power.
> It's an argument against 2800. And it is a argument that could be made
> to the Commission.
>
> Oh, while I think of it, the 60 m band channels are not a good example
> of where 2800 Hz
> is now permitted because (1) they are channelized, and (2) modes like
> PSK and JT (also
> CW) can not be operated according to standard amateur practice, that is,
> anywhere in the channel,
> with the efficiency of multiple users.
>
> Summary:
> 1- The argument for 2800 Hz is not substantiated by the ARRL, even with
> reference to 60m.
> 2- Currently regs permit RTTY parameters for up to 1500 Hz BW
> ("Steam-RTTY" is 250 Hz).
> 3- Amateur practice must consider customary RECEIVE bandwidths for
> digital modes (not just TX)
> which may be impacted by wide-band transmissions
>
> 73
> Kai, KE4PT
>
>
> On 11/23/2013 12:10 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>
>> > Additionally, modes like PSK31 (63 Hz necessary BW on TX) and JT65
>> > (170 Hz BW on TX) are actually practiced by hams as multiple users in
>> > a 2-4 kHz BW subband. Individual TX BWs are small, but general usage
>> > is for multiple simultaneous decodes in a contiguous BW. I guess that
>> > this is the kind of innovation and usage that we don't want to shut
>> > ourselves out of.
>>
>> Asking for a 500 Hz bandwidth limit in the current "RTTY, data"
>> allocations below 30 MHz would not "shut out" any of the modes
>> like PSK31, JT65, JT9, WSPR or QRSS ... I doubt that 500 Hz would
>> shut out PSK63, PSK125 or some of the narrower MFSK modes either.
>> These narrow modes - traditional RTTY at 45.45 and 75 baud, PSK31,
>> JT65, JT9, WSPR and QRSS - represent well in excess of 90% of all
>> HF digital operators and QSOs over the course of a month or year.
>>
>> 300 Hz or 500 Hz is consistent with "traditional radiotelepriner
>> bandwidths" which is what the FCC, themselves, defined as the
>> criteria for establishing the 300 baud limit in 1980. It is also
>> compatible with the overwhelming majority of *all* amateur activity
>> (including CW) in the spectrum allocated for "RTTY, data" operation.
>> I think it is incumbent on both the general digital operator and CW
>> operators to convince the FCC that we *still* want the bandwidth to
>> be consistent with "traditional teleprinter bandwidths" and that
>> there is no overwhelming need for wider bandwidth.
>>
>> Again, if ARRL can justify a real need (which is doubtful due to
>> the overwhelming use of narrow bandwidth modes) for wider data
>> modes, they should petition the Commission to authorize "RTTY, data"
>> modes in the current "phone, image" portions 75, 40, 20, 17, 15, 12
>> and 10 meters with a bandwidth of "up to" 2.8 KHz - comparable to
>> the bandwidth of "phone, image" modes.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>> On 11/22/2013 5:00 PM, Kai wrote:
>>> EXACTLY! I've brought this up obliquely before, but in more detail
>>> here:
>>>
>>> BW limit means "occupied BW" defined as less than 0.5% of power is
>>> below and less than 0.5% power is above the bandwidth. There is also
>>> necessary BW. See the regs, see 47 CFR 2.202 (a) and (b). In the case
>>> of two tone amateur RTTY (or using Chen's affectation "steam RTTY"),
>>> that means the BW=B+1.2S where B is the baud rate and S is the shift.
>>> The common 45.45B 170S works out to 249.45 = 250 Hz necessary BW.
>>>
>>> So 1000 S at 300 B works out to be 1500 Hz necessary BW. That is a
>>> nice possible limit since it parrots the current regs for RTTY as 300
>>> baud limit and max 1000 Hz shift. I won't debate whether that is
>>> needed or even used, but it is currently permitted.
>>>
>>> The lowest order PACTOR-III SL1 mode has 100+1.2(840) = 1108 Hz
>>> necessary BW, the highest order PACTOR-III SL6 is 100+1.2(2040)= 2448
>>> Hz. There are four levels in between. The lowest order PACTOR fits in
>>> the 1500 BW.
>>>
>>> The FCC/NTIA and ITU-R publish guide lines on computing required BWs.
>>> See US 47 CFR 2.201-2.202-emission designators, modulations and
>>> necessary BW. Our 47 CFR 97 points to that.
>>>
>>> We indeed need to be careful about what we ask for!
>>>
>>> Additionally, modes like PSK31 (63 Hz necessary BW on TX) and JT65
>>> (170 Hz BW on TX) are actually practiced by hams as multiple users in
>>> a 2-4 kHz BW subband. Individual TX BWs are small, but general usage
>>> is for multiple simultaneous decodes in a contiguous BW. I guess that
>>> this is the kind of innovation and usage that we don't want to shut
>>> ourselves out of.
>>>
>>> 73 Kai, KE4PT
>>>
>>> On 11/22/2013 2:51 PM, Bill Turner wrote:
>>>> I am a little surprised that no one has brought up the question of
>>>> measuring bandwidth. We need to be careful what we ask for - we
>>>> just might get it.
>>>>
>>>> If the FCC should establish a bandwidth limit of 500 Hz, what
>>>> exactly does that mean? Does that mean that all tones AND SIDEBANDS
>>>> must be within the 500 Hz? Or does it mean that the shift of a
>>>> signal must be within 500 Hz but the sidebands can be outside 500
>>>> Hz? And if the latter, how many dB down must they be?
>>>>
>>>> You may recall that the "real" bandwidth of a 170 Hz shift RTTY
>>>> signal is approximately 300 Hz because of the sidebands. Given
>>>> that, what is the real bandwidth of a mode that claims to occupy
>>>> 500 Hz, such as Olivia 500/16?
>>>>
>>>> This needs to be settled before the rule is made by the FCC,
>>>> otherwise chaos will surely follow.
>>>>
>>>> 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 10:02:31 -0800
From: Kok Chen <chen at mac.com>
To: k.siwiak at ieee.org
Cc: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
Message-ID: <9E4E08FA-E4EA-49A2-8A40-734800E7333E at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Nov 23, 2013, at 8:00 AM, Kai wrote:
> Again, to keep what we can do today, (up to the 300 baud RTTY with up to
> 1000 Hz shift) would require a bandwidth of
> 300+1.2(1000) = 1500 Hz. THAT is the current RTTY teleprinter mode
limit
That is actually a darn good suggestion, and does not deviate from what we
can do today on FSK with the current regulations.
I.e., the narrowest 2 tone FSK bandwidth you can get by using the maximum
symbol rate and FSK shift that is allowed from the existing regulations.
This would include 850 Hz RTTY shift too, which will allow good
experimentation to further study selective fading.
Mind if I plagiarize that to include in my own comments to the FCC?
P.S. It would also de-legalize Pactor III and create a different
religious war. (Pactor III is 2K20J2D emission.)
73
Chen, W7AY
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 12:04:57 -0600
From: "Don Hill AA5AU" <aa5au at bellsouth.net>
To: <rtty at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
Message-ID: <000e01cee876$85caabc0$91600340$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I don't think we should be asking the FCC for a specified bandwidth limit
at this time. Our actions should be geared toward getting
the FCC to dismiss the ARRL proposal.
Don AA5AU
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kai
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:01 AM
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
Hi Joe,
I was referring to the future, not the past. We DO want to keep the door
open to innovation. That's why I agree that getting the
baud language out of the regs is good. But I also think that 2800 Hz BW is
a bit over the top, except perhaps up where "image" is
permitted. The number should be lower, but how low?
Perhaps this forum can home in on it.
Again, to keep what we can do today, (up to the 300 baud RTTY with up to
1000 Hz shift) would require a bandwidth of
300+1.2(1000) = 1500 Hz. THAT is the current RTTY teleprinter mode limit
So, the question boils down to: do we want more
restrictive regs?
My point about how we use PSK and JT modes was a bit more subtle. One has
to consider how those modes are used.
Each of the TRANSMISSIONS are indeed below at least 500 Hz. But PSK and JT
were designed to operating RECEIVING multiple users over
a 2-4 kHz band.
We all mostly cooperate and that system works. It is because of the need
for 2-4 kHz "subbands" on RECEIVING the multiple PSK and JT
signals, that we would NOT want band-hogging 2800 Hz signals in the
non-phone non-image ranges.
Common practice for PSK and JT type modes is to operate at low transmit
power.
It's an argument against 2800. And it is a argument that could be made to
the Commission.
Oh, while I think of it, the 60 m band channels are not a good example of
where
2800 Hz
is now permitted because (1) they are channelized, and (2) modes like PSK
and JT (also
CW) can not be operated according to standard amateur practice, that is,
anywhere in the channel, with the efficiency of multiple
users.
Summary:
1- The argument for 2800 Hz is not substantiated by the ARRL, even with
reference to 60m.
2- Currently regs permit RTTY parameters for up to 1500 Hz BW
("Steam-RTTY" is
250 Hz).
3- Amateur practice must consider customary RECEIVE bandwidths for digital
modes (not just TX)
which may be impacted by wide-band transmissions
73
Kai, KE4PT
On 11/23/2013 12:10 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
> > Additionally, modes like PSK31 (63 Hz necessary BW on TX) and JT65
> > (170 Hz BW on TX) are actually practiced by hams as multiple users in
> > a 2-4 kHz BW subband. Individual TX BWs are small, but general usage
> > is for multiple simultaneous decodes in a contiguous BW. I guess that
> > this is the kind of innovation and usage that we don't want to shut
> > ourselves out of.
>
> Asking for a 500 Hz bandwidth limit in the current "RTTY, data"
> allocations below 30 MHz would not "shut out" any of the modes
> like PSK31, JT65, JT9, WSPR or QRSS ... I doubt that 500 Hz would
> shut out PSK63, PSK125 or some of the narrower MFSK modes either.
> These narrow modes - traditional RTTY at 45.45 and 75 baud, PSK31,
> JT65, JT9, WSPR and QRSS - represent well in excess of 90% of all
> HF digital operators and QSOs over the course of a month or year.
>
> 300 Hz or 500 Hz is consistent with "traditional radiotelepriner
> bandwidths" which is what the FCC, themselves, defined as the
> criteria for establishing the 300 baud limit in 1980. It is also
> compatible with the overwhelming majority of *all* amateur activity
> (including CW) in the spectrum allocated for "RTTY, data" operation.
> I think it is incumbent on both the general digital operator and CW
> operators to convince the FCC that we *still* want the bandwidth to
> be consistent with "traditional teleprinter bandwidths" and that
> there is no overwhelming need for wider bandwidth.
>
> Again, if ARRL can justify a real need (which is doubtful due to
> the overwhelming use of narrow bandwidth modes) for wider data
> modes, they should petition the Commission to authorize "RTTY, data"
> modes in the current "phone, image" portions 75, 40, 20, 17, 15, 12
> and 10 meters with a bandwidth of "up to" 2.8 KHz - comparable to
> the bandwidth of "phone, image" modes.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 11/22/2013 5:00 PM, Kai wrote:
>> EXACTLY! I've brought this up obliquely before, but in more detail
>> here:
>>
>> BW limit means "occupied BW" defined as less than 0.5% of power is
>> below and less than 0.5% power is above the bandwidth. There is also
>> necessary BW. See the regs, see 47 CFR 2.202 (a) and (b). In the case
>> of two tone amateur RTTY (or using Chen's affectation "steam RTTY"),
>> that means the BW=B+1.2S where B is the baud rate and S is the shift.
>> The common 45.45B 170S works out to 249.45 = 250 Hz necessary BW.
>>
>> So 1000 S at 300 B works out to be 1500 Hz necessary BW. That is a
>> nice possible limit since it parrots the current regs for RTTY as 300
>> baud limit and max 1000 Hz shift. I won't debate whether that is
>> needed or even used, but it is currently permitted.
>>
>> The lowest order PACTOR-III SL1 mode has 100+1.2(840) = 1108 Hz
>> necessary BW, the highest order PACTOR-III SL6 is 100+1.2(2040)= 2448
>> Hz. There are four levels in between. The lowest order PACTOR fits in
>> the 1500 BW.
>>
>> The FCC/NTIA and ITU-R publish guide lines on computing required BWs.
>> See US 47 CFR 2.201-2.202-emission designators, modulations and
>> necessary BW. Our 47 CFR 97 points to that.
>>
>> We indeed need to be careful about what we ask for!
>>
>> Additionally, modes like PSK31 (63 Hz necessary BW on TX) and JT65
>> (170 Hz BW on TX) are actually practiced by hams as multiple users in
>> a 2-4 kHz BW subband. Individual TX BWs are small, but general usage
>> is for multiple simultaneous decodes in a contiguous BW. I guess that
>> this is the kind of innovation and usage that we don't want to shut
>> ourselves out of.
>>
>> 73 Kai, KE4PT
>>
>> On 11/22/2013 2:51 PM, Bill Turner wrote:
>>> I am a little surprised that no one has brought up the question of
>>> measuring bandwidth. We need to be careful what we ask for - we
>>> just might get it.
>>>
>>> If the FCC should establish a bandwidth limit of 500 Hz, what
>>> exactly does that mean? Does that mean that all tones AND SIDEBANDS
>>> must be within the 500 Hz? Or does it mean that the shift of a
>>> signal must be within 500 Hz but the sidebands can be outside 500
>>> Hz? And if the latter, how many dB down must they be?
>>>
>>> You may recall that the "real" bandwidth of a 170 Hz shift RTTY
>>> signal is approximately 300 Hz because of the sidebands. Given
>>> that, what is the real bandwidth of a mode that claims to occupy
>>> 500 Hz, such as Olivia 500/16?
>>>
>>> This needs to be settled before the rule is made by the FCC,
>>> otherwise chaos will surely follow.
>>>
>>> 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 12:13:59 -0600
From: "Jeff Blaine" <keepwalking188 at yahoo.com>
To: "Kok Chen" <chen at mac.com>, <k.siwiak at ieee.org>
Cc: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
Message-ID: <73AAB052483041959164959B7EE155C0 at w520>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
The guys promoting the winlink/pactor 4 stuff keep talking about improved
emcom support. But I'm not sure how these two items tie together.
Can someone explain how the emcom needs are not met with the currently
supported modes? I have seen a lot of MARS related winlink comments but
that group has a different focus than the general ham population. Not to
mention MARS has it's own set of dedicated frequencies.
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Kok Chen
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 12:02 PM
To: k.siwiak at ieee.org
Cc: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
On Nov 23, 2013, at 8:00 AM, Kai wrote:
> Again, to keep what we can do today, (up to the 300 baud RTTY with up to
> 1000 Hz shift) would require a bandwidth of
> 300+1.2(1000) = 1500 Hz. THAT is the current RTTY teleprinter mode
> limit
That is actually a darn good suggestion, and does not deviate from what we
can do today on FSK with the current regulations.
I.e., the narrowest 2 tone FSK bandwidth you can get by using the maximum
symbol rate and FSK shift that is allowed from the existing regulations.
This would include 850 Hz RTTY shift too, which will allow good
experimentation to further study selective fading.
Mind if I plagiarize that to include in my own comments to the FCC?
P.S. It would also de-legalize Pactor III and create a different
religious
war. (Pactor III is 2K20J2D emission.)
73
Chen, W7AY
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 10:24:04 -0800
From: Kok Chen <chen at mac.com>
To: Don Hill AA5AU <aa5au at bellsouth.net>
Cc: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
Message-ID: <1AF1350A-56BB-4875-9C98-1DDEBE022A1F at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Nov 23, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Don Hill AA5AU wrote:
> I don't think we should be asking the FCC for a specified bandwidth
limit at this time. Our actions should be geared toward getting
> the FCC to dismiss the ARRL proposal.
Correct, Don. But if you read my earlier posting, the ARRL is *also*
sneakily proposing a change to expand the bandwidth in their proposed change to
97.307 (f) (3).
I don't know who drafted in that change, and even the Board of Directors
may not be aware of that sleight of hand. All the propaganda from HQ is
about changing symbol rates, but they had to sneak that bandwidth item in.
Nothing to do with symbol rates, but very detrimental to digital subbands.
If you write to your director, be sure to mention that they need to
carefully read the petition, especially the 2.8 kHz part, to be sure that they
know what they had signed up to.
73
Chen, W7AY
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
------------------------------
End of RTTY Digest, Vol 131, Issue 36
*************************************
More information about the RTTY
mailing list