[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

Dave AA6YQ aa6yq at ambersoft.com
Sat Nov 23 20:58:16 EST 2013 

Your message is the first I've heard of automatically controlled stations ignoring the 500 hz bandwidth limitation within the
sub-bands specified by 97.221. Is this anecdotal, or is there hard evidence of this behavior? 

       73,

             Dave, AA6YQ

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:lists at subich.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:50 PM
To: Dave AA6YQ
Cc: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users


 > How is it different than an automatically controlled station as
 > described in 97.221?

A "scanning auto-responder" is a station described by 97.221 (c)(1).

However, operators of such systems claim they are not automatically
controlled (they are "controlled" by the interrogating station) and
thus not subject to 97.221 - including the bandwidth limitation.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 11/23/2013 8:21 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
> What's a "scanning auto-responder"? How is it different than an automatically controlled station as described in 97.221?
>
> <http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=136>
>
>         73,
>
>                  Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:07 PM
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
>
>
>   > 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 3629/6361 - Release Date: 11/23/13
>
>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3629/6361 - Release Date: 11/23/13

More information about the RTTY mailing list