[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
Dave AA6YQ
aa6yq at ambersoft.com
Sun Nov 24 11:24:35 EST 2013
WinMor also includes an effective busy-frequency detector that reduces the likelihood of its servers responding on a frequency that
is already in use.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Don Hill AA5AU
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 11:17 AM
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
Dave, the link provided mentions a mode I have never heard of before. It's called Winmor and it has a rate of either 47 or 94 baud
and has a bandwidth of either 450 or 1600 Hz depending on which mode it used. It is an AFSK mode which uses a sound card.
http://www.winlink.org/WINMOR
Don AA5AU
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:53 AM
To: 'Joe Subich, W4TV'
Cc: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
In messaging systems like WinLink, users activate an unattended server. For this to work, users must know on what frequencies to
call.
See, for example,
<http://www.qsl.net/ve3lki/RMS/index.html>
Being Canadian, this station is not subject to 97.221; some of the frequencies it advertises are outside the "automatic control"
segments defined in 97.221.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:lists at subich.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:28 AM
To: Dave AA6YQ
Cc: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
On 11/23/2013 8:58 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
> 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.
It's not just in the sub-bands defined by 97.221 ... it's where ever
the auto-responding systems are called.
> Is this anecdotal, or is there hard evidence of this behavior?
Well, it's a little difficult to have callsigns and times since the
PACTOR protocol is proprietary, SCS refuses to publish it, and it
is impossible to decode without spending $2000 for one of SCS's
hardware modems. However, he sudden appearance of the "burping,"
wide, noise like signal on top of narrow bandwidth QSOs is a good
indication of this behavior.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
>
> 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
>
>
-----
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
_______________________________________________
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: 3629/6362 - Release Date: 11/24/13
More information about the RTTY
mailing list