[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

 > Has anyone reached a different conclusion?

The scanning "auto-responders" are not considered to be automatically
controlled.  That one reason they can pop-up anywhere "RTTY, data"
emissions are authorized.  The 500 Hz bandwidth does not apply to
them - and is routinely ignores by "automatically controlled" stations
in the "automatic control" sub-bands.

ARRL's assertion that "there is no proposal herein to change" rings
hollow because most of the PACTOR systems are not technically operated
under the "automatic control" rules.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 11/23/2013 7:45 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
> Section II.8 of
>
> <http://www.arrl.org/files/media/News/Petition%20for%20Rule%20Making%20AS-FILED%2011%2015%202013.pdf>
>
> restates the 500 hertz bandwidth limit on automatically controlled stations operating in the HF subbands specified by 97.221.
> Footnote 11 says "there is no proposal herein to change the nominal bandwidth limitation for automatically controlled stations
> transmitting data emissions".
>
> Thus the ARRL's proposal would if adopted not result in any expansion in either the bandwidth or HF spectrum available to
> automatically controlled stations.
>
> Has anyone reached a different conclusion?
>
>         73,
>
>                Dave, AA6YQ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kai
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 6:21 PM
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
>
> John,
> The appropriate course of action now would be to file comments about the ARRL
> proposal (and just the proposal).
> One approach may be, a step by step effort to defeat any BW greater than 2,200 Hz::
> (1) To keep the status quo, the BW should be 2,200 Hz.  That excludes no one,
> adds no one, and keeps all current modes as before; allows for future innovation
> and experimentation.
> (2) That means 2800 is clearly outside the mainstream -- we must demonstrate now
> that 2800 would injure current users without any real benefits.
> [this is reasonable in view of the ARRL proposal, and stands a chance of prevailing]
>
> if you want to go further, and alternative argument is:
>
> (3) Current RTTY limit (up to 300 B, and 1 kHz T sep) requires just 1,500 Hz.
> That satisfies everything including PACTOR-III-SL1.
> Perhaps that's a rock bottom figure because it results in small reductions in
> current amateur privileges, maybe not so bad except for the
> PACTOR-III modes SL2-6. Then follow up with (2) again, that 2800 Hz will cause
> harm.
> [this one we think is reasonable, but it injures other current users, so less
> chance of prevailing]
>
> So I can see a clear case for 2,200 Hz, and a good case for 1,500 Hz.  But I can
> not see a viable case for much below 1,500 Hz.
> The another important thrust would be to demonstrate that anything greater than
> 2200 Hz belongs up there with image emissions and in the 60 m band channels
> (where 2800 is already legal) because it is incompatible with amateur usage and
> practice in the CW/digi frequencies.
>
> 73
> Kai, KE4PT
>
> On 11/23/2013 5:09 PM, John Grimm wrote:
>> I am in the process of drafting my comments.  Like Jim, I would appreciate even a bullet list of topics/issues which are deemed
> important to include in those comments.  This would be very helpful to me as I've never filed comments before.
>>
>> John / K0YQ
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 13:36:05 -0600
>> From: "Jim N7US"<jim at n7us.net>
>> To:<rtty at contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
>> Message-ID:<025601cee883$4168a560$c439f020$@net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> Would it be productive if a committee of "The Knowledgeable" got together to
>> draft an effective, succinct email to the ARRL directors that includes the
>> key problems with the proposal?  Each of us could either copy and paste it
>> in an email to our respective directors or modify/personalize it before
>> doing so.  It should include the impact on all modes and activities, not
>> only RTTY.
>>
>> I understand it's already gone to the FCC, so responding to that is a
>> separate undertaking, and Don just created a web page on how to do that.  I
>> would think that the key points in the ARRL director email would probably be
>> the same ones to include in an FCC filing.
>>
>> 73, Jim N7US
>>
>>    		 	   		
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3629/6360 - Release Date: 11/23/13
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>