[RTTY] Hints and tips on how to file comments on RM-11708

[Stan]

>This proposal was developed by *Winlink insiders* who hijacked the ARRL
> process. These self-serving individuals railroaded a recommendation
> through an ad hoc committee and the Board of Directors

Wow, now we're not only mispresenting the facts - finally we need the help
of some conspiracy theory.

Absurd.

Stan


On ‎25‎.‎11‎.‎2013 at 10:57 PM, "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com> wrote:
>
>> That's part of the problem. Without these limitations we can 
>realize
> > modes nobody thought of till today.
>
>We don't *need* those wider bandwidth modes for either 
>radioteletype
>(user to user) communications or amateur "data" (bulk transfer) 
>uses.
>The *only value* of wider bandwidth signals is to carry more data -
>either digital voice or *commercial* data quantities.  In the 
>former
>case, digital voice belongs in the "voice, image" allocations and 
>in
>the latter case, commercial data transfers *do not belong* in the
>amateur bands at all.
>
>> Nonsense. Ham density in many countries is much higher than in 
>the
>> US. Even more when taken into account that most technicians are
>> active on VHF/UHF only.
>
>This is not an issue of "national density" - it is number of hams 
>in
>total or number of users per KHz.  There are more amateurs in the 
>US
>than there are in Canada, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and South
>America *combined*.  If even the same percentage of licensees were 
>to
>use wide band data modes in the US as in the rest of the world, the
>horrendous level of interference from wideband data signals would
>more than double over night.
>
> > This all seems to be a private campaign of a few against
> > Winlink/Pactor rather than supporting the future of ham radio.
>
>No, this is all about the future of amateur radio.  Do you want an
>amateur service that is about the amateurs and provides an 
>opportunity
>for amateur to amateur communication or do you want an amateur 
>service
>in which the amateur bands are used as conduits for low cost 
>commercial
>data transfer - essentially another mobile service - dominated by 
>one
>or two corporations?
>
> > This proposal was well defined by experts from ARRL with a more 
>global
> > future oriented view helping experimenters to develop new modes.
>
>This proposal was developed by *Winlink insiders* who hijacked the 
>ARRL
>process.  These self-serving individuals railroaded a 
>recommendation
>through an ad hoc committee and the Board of Directors without 
>giving
>the general membership an opportunity to comment or provide 
>opposing 
>viewpoints.
>
> > That's ham radio!
>
>No, that's a corporate coup d'tat.
>
> > Support our league, guys.
>
>Support the Amateur Service - not corporate confiscation.
>
>73,
>
>    ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>On 11/25/2013 4:18 PM, Stan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> have all been developed under  the current bandwidth 
>"limitations."
>>
>> That's part of the problem. Without these limitations we can 
>realize
>> modes nobody thought of till today.
>>
>>>   Co-existance has not been "proven in the rest of the world" 
>as use
>>> of wider modes has been limited by the number of licensees in 
>the
>>> rest of the world
>>
>> Nonsense. Ham density in many countries is much higher than in 
>the
>> US. Even more when taken into account that most technicians are
>> active on VHF/UHF only.
>>
>>> Winlink and PACTOR III/IV are a blight on amateur radio and 
>should
>>
>> This all seems to be a private campaign of a few against 
>Winlink/Pactor rather
>> than supporting the future of ham radio.
>>
>> This proposal was well defined by experts from ARRL with a more 
>global
>> future oriented view helping experimenters to develop new modes.
>> That's ham radio!
>> Support our league, guys.
>>
>> Stan
>> _________________________________________________________
>> On Nov 25, 2013, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>> It will just open the door to experiment and develop new modes -
>>> this  is ham radio.
>>
>>   The door is not closed to developing new modes.  The most 
>popular of
>>   new modes, PSK31, JT65, JT9, and WSPR have all been developed 
>under
>>   the current bandwidth "limitations."
>>
>>> And the co-existance has been proven in the rest of the ham 
>world
>>   > where this is allowed since many years.
>>
>>   Co-existance has not been "proven in the rest of the world" as 
>use
>>   of wider modes has been limited by the number of licensees in 
>the
>>   rest of the world and the general lack of significant usage 
>for these
>>   bandwidth hogging commercial traffic systems anywhere except 
>the
>>   automatic control sub-bands.
>>
>>   Winlink and PACTOR III/IV are a blight on amateur radio and 
>should
>>   be made illegal in the same way as bandwidth wasting spark was 
>made
>>   illegal in the 1920s.
>>
>>   73,
>>
>>      ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>>   On 11/25/2013 4:11 AM, Stan wrote:
>>> Just for the records,
>>>
>>> If you won't follow the arguments of those 'experts' - you are 
>also welcome to
>>> file a comment that you are perfectly fine with the proposal 
>from our league.
>>>
>>> There're always naysayers but SSB was not the end of ham radio -
> the Internet
>>> was not the end of ham radio - 2.8kHz bandwidth will not be the 
>end of RTTY.
>>>
>>> It will just open the door to experiment and develop new modes -
> this is ham
>>> radio.
>>>
>>> And the co-existance has been proven in the rest of the ham 
>world where this
>>> is allowed since many years.
>>>
>>> Stan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 24, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>>
>>>    > PACTOR III is *NOT* currently permitted under the rules. 
>Its use has
>>>    > been *overlooked* by enforcement organizations as it 
>*absolutely* can
>>>    > not be justified under the *dual standard* in 97.307(f)(3) 
>which has
>>>    > both 300 baud and 1000 Hz shift limits.
>>>
>>>    That is not true Joe... please don't make that mistake in 
>your FCC filing.
>>>
>>>    At all SL levels, Pactor III's symbol rate is fixed at 100 
>baud (yes, not even close to 300 baud). (Don't confuse Symbol Rate 
>(baud rate) with data rate (bit rate)).
>>>
>>>    Pactor III is not 2 tone FSK, so the FSK shift rule does not 
>even apply (makes no technical sense since there is no frequency 
>shift happening).
>>>
>>>    Pactor 3 SL1 (the slowest rate) consists of two synchronous 
>PSK signals (not FSK), that are separated by 840 Hz. 840 Hz is the 
>maximum tone separation for Pactor 3 (if you want to apply the 
>term "shift" to the signal). As more tones are added (SL2, SL3, 
>etc), the tone separations become narrow, and at the narrowest, 
>there are 18 tones, separated by 120 Hz from one another.
>>>
>>>    Pactor 3 SL1, 2 and 3 uses binary PSK, and Pactor 3 SL4, 5, 
>6 uses Quadrature PSK.
>>>
>>>    It is much clearer if you go take a look with a panadapter 
>or a waterfall, or if you can, in I/Q phase space.
>>>
>>>    Pactor 3 SL1 looks like two broad indistinct tones that are 
>840 Hz from one another, with a distinctive gap in between them. 
>It is quite unmistakable once you see it on the waterfall.
>>>
>>>    73
>>>    Chen, W7AY
>>>