[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[Kok Chen]

On Nov 23, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Don Hill AA5AU wrote:

> Only after the proposal is defeated should any dialog be opened with the ARRL in order to present a petition which would eliminate
> the existing symbol rate and replace it with a reasonable bandwidth limit or to allow digital signals of 2.8 kHz to reside in the
> PHONE and IMAGE section of the band instead of the existing Digital/CW section.

I agree with Don.  The horse is already out of the barn.  The only thing we can do, and need to do within the next 28 days or so, is to shoot the horse.

After this horse is beaten, we can perhaps then address the problem.  (Just how many times do we need to beat this dead horse anyway.  As Jeff AC0C pointed out, the last time we had to do that was as recently as 2005.)

So, going just slightly off-topic for the moment...

One of the problems is that Part 97 does not make a substantial distinction between RTTY and Data.

Hand-wavingly, RTTY is pretty much Steam-RTTY, PSK31, JT9, MFSK16, Olivia, Amtor, etc, while Data is pretty much the packet stuff today.  But Part 97 lumps the two together.  So RTTY and Data obeys the same rules.  When you go through Part 97, you see the phrase "RTTY or data emission" or "RTTY, data or multiplexed emission" all over the place.

RTTY usually has actual live persons (or some remote control operator) in front of a keyboard (or a paddle, in the case of a K3 :-) chatting away and often exchanging information about propagation conditions and signal purity (thus fulfilling more than one of the objectives as stated in 97.1).

The latter ("Data") consists of massive data dumps, often in the form of e-mail. 

If RTTY and Data were classified differently, we could have segregated them by band plans, and if they are restricted to a different part of the spectrum, and I don't get QRM by them, I personally couldn't care less if they are encrypted since I won't need to identify their call signs.

But that is not what we have today, and as Don mentioned, the Data users can operate anywhere RTTY user can operate, and they can (and do) fire up their bursts on top of our signals even though our transmissions are not even meant for them.  And since some of them use commercial modems that have proprietary, unpublished protocols and codes, we have no way to identify them, and thus there is no way for us to "self enforce" amateur frequencies.

73
Chen, W7AY