[RTTY] Hints and tips on how to file comments on RM-11708
Jeff Blaine
keepwalking188 at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 26 01:59:15 EST 2013
Stan,
Check it out for yourself. Here's what I did to see where these guys were
pointing...
Pull up Document 26 from the ARRL web site.
There are 5 names on that. The bottom 3 are the ARRL's CEO, lawyer and tech
guy - who I assume probably cosign any petition to the FCC. The remaining
two are the interesting characters. A quick search on the web with their
call signs pulls up plenty of PACTOR and WINLINK comments.
A search of RTTY and the same cast of characters comes up with almost
nothing. Of the 5, only K1ZZ pops up on 3830 as an active contester (he's
also an exceptional CW op) but the others may not send in 3830 reports so
it's not fully conclusive. I did not look at DXCC lists or anything else; I
assume they all do some amount of dxing and rag chewing.
My point here is that casual looks for interest by these guys provided
immediate and direct email-via-radio interests - and the same review process
did not provide much in the way of CW/RTTY.
Personally, I don't mind guys who are an expert in the email/radio stuff
leading the charge. However, the objectionable part is that the ARRL who
factually represents only 20% of the US ham population is making a petition
on behalf of the ENTIRE US ham population. And based on the FCC comments
from the 2005-2007 era, the ARRL's very similar proposal from then was very
unpopular. I don't see that it's changed 5 years later. Yet the ARRL is
again saying this action represents the greater good.
But I could be wrong in this reading of the situation. Hope so!!!
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 4:14 PM
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Hints and tips on how to file comments on RM-11708
>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
More information about the RTTY
mailing list