[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
Joe Subich, W4TV
lists at subich.com
Sun Nov 24 11:55:33 EST 2013
> In messaging systems like WinLink, users activate an unattended
> server. For this to work, users must know on what frequencies to
> call.
Looking at the Channel list on the Winlink2000 web site and listing
*only PACTOR RMS servers* <http://www.winlink.org/RMSChannels> shows
*59* frequencies "advertised" for 24 hour a day operation by *US*
*stations* outside the frequencies authorized for automatic control
in 97.221. That tells me that those *30 FCC licensees* are operating
automatically controlled stations outside the parameters of 97.221.
Some of these posted "watch" frequencies - places the systems will
respond to callers - include areas such as 7060-7100 KHz (19 systems -
including four systems in the 7076-7080 JT65/JT9 "center of activity"),
10122-10140 KHz (11 systems - including three systems each in the PSK31
and JT65 "centers of activity"), 14060-14080 KHz (7 systems), and
18097-18105 KHz (5 systems).
I have not investigated the "Winmor" software protocols but I see many
listed operating ("watch") frequencies outside the "automatic control"
bands with 24 hour a day operation ... and those are only the "public"
systems.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 11/24/2013 10:53 AM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
> 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
>
>
More information about the RTTY
mailing list