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

Mon Nov 25 17:29:12 EST 2013

 > Wow, now we're not only mispresenting the facts

No misrepresentation - look at the members of the "ad hoc committee" -
two WinLink insiders and *no* RTTY users or other independent experts
in amateur data communications.  Res Ipsa Loquitor  (Latin for "the
thing itself speaks") - in other words, the facts speak for themselves.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV

On 11/25/2013 5:14 PM, Stan wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>