[RTTY] From: RTTY

[RTTY]

Also, when you reply, it doesn't go directly to the person who originated the message. Instead, it works like a Yahoo Group and is addressed back to the entire group. There is generally not good as it will increase traffic. And I also note that the originator's email address is not available to do a direct reply either.

Don AA5AU



>________________________________
> From: RTTY <rtty at contesting.com>
>To: rtty at contesting.com 
>Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 11:22 AM
>Subject: [RTTY] From: RTTY
> 
>
>It looks like the change that was discussed yesterday, regarding 
>making reflector messages FROM: rtty at contesting.com has gone into 
>effect.
>
>The downside of this is that we can't see who the originator is. 
>There are a few people on here for whom I read 100% of their 
>posts.  There are others for whom I read none of their posts. 
>Now we can't tell without opening the email.
>
>Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
>Yuma, AZ
>
>
>
>-----Original Message----- 
>From: RTTY
>Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:03 PM
>To: rtty at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [RTTY] Please file your comments with RM-11708 with 
>teh FCC and your ARRL Director
>
>
>> For two-tone RTTY, the limits are 300 baud AND 1 kHz maximum 
>> tone
>> separation,
>
>That is only true because neither the Commission or anyone else 
>could
>have foreseen multiple tone FSK or channel equalization methods 
>when
>the rules were written.  That was still the case well into the 
>late
>1980s when the rules for automatically controlled digital 
>operations
>were written.  Unfortunately, PACTOR II maintained the 500 Hz 
>bandwidth
>and when PACTOR III with its multiple channel modes was 
>introduced
>nobody thought to ask the Commission to apply the 1500 Hz limit. 
>It
>is likely, they would have done something if a timely complaint 
>had
>been made but once the mode became generally used they were 
>reluctant
>to order it withdrawn from use.
>
>> The correct arguments to make are:
>> (1) Remove the archaic 300 baud language AND
>> (2) take ALL that occupy more than (for example) 500  Hz 
>> (digital and
>> analog)ABOVE the CW/digital boundary.\
>>
>> It becomes regulation by bandwidth, but that is the right thing 
>> to
>> do.
>
>It is no different than the regulatory system that has been in 
>place
>for 80+ years.  Regulations protecting narrow bandwidth modes 
>from
>the asymmetric interference caused by wide bandwidth modes have 
>been
>the norm since the FCC restricted phone to only part of each 
>amateur
>band.
>
>If the Commission were to allow RTTY and data every where CW is 
>now
>authorized, apply a 500 Hz (or 300 Hz) limit in the current "CW 
>bands"
>and explicitly limit all modes except ISB and AM to 2.8 KHz 
>instead of
>the vague "bandwidth of a communications grade voice signal", the
>regulations would become content agnostic.  That is, it would not
>matter if the source of the modulation was voice, image, keyboard
>to keyboard or computer to computer communications.  That 
>environment
>would allow innovation to flourish - particularly mixed data 
>modes -
>and would continue to protect traditional narrow bandwidth modes 
>from
>catastrophic interference levels while at the same time give the 
>high
>speed data transfer folks an opportunity.
>
>The only other additions I would make would be:
>
>1) all protocols, modulations, and encoding systems must be fully
>    disclosed.  All encoding keys must be public, variable key
>    encoding would not be permitted.
>2) proprietary protocols - those that require the purchase of a
>    software license or specific hardware in order to decode - 
>would
>    not be permitted (e.g., AMBE or PACTOR III/IV).
>3) all automatically controlled stations must include effective
>    channel busy detectors for both wideband and narrow band as 
>well
>    as analog and digital signals.
>4) any modulation/protocol not generally monitored "by ear" must
>    have a "waterfall" or spectrum display capable of showing any
>    other signal on the frequency so the operator can avoid 
>causing
>    interference.  Any mode/modulation/protocol that lacks visual
>    means for determining whether a frequency is busy must 
>include
>    an effective software channel busy detector.
>5) automatically controlled digital stations would not be 
>permitted
>    in the narrow band segments of any band or 160 and 30 meters.
>
>73,
>
>    ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>On 4/16/2014 11:42 AM, Kai wrote:
>> Terry Under current FCC rules, the 300 baud limit does NOT 
>> limit
>> bandwidth except for two-tone RTTY signals. Note for example 
>> that
>> PACTOR-3 occupies 2.2 kHz and uses a baud rate of 100. There is 
>> no BW
>> limit for non-FSK signaling (like PACTOR-3).  The 300 baud 
>> limit does
>> not stop 2.2 kHz wide PACTOR-3. PACTOR-3 does not use 
>> "two-tones" so
>> the 1 kHz FSK limit does not apply. It occupies 2.2 kHz.  That 
>> is the
>> TRUE situation today, which RM-11708 leverages to argue for a
>> bandwidth limit, as in "we don't understand". It is OK to 
>> remove the
>>  baud rate limit since it doesn't limit BW of non-FSK 
>> modulations.
>> But what is NOT OK is the 2800 Hz limit, like "the ARRL do not
>> understand this."
>>
>> For two-tone RTTY, the limits are 300 baud AND 1 kHz maximum 
>> tone
>> separation, so the maximum permitted band width is 300+1.2*1000 
>> =
>> 1500 Hz. Amateur RTTY, what we we all use today occupies
>> 45.45+1.2*170 = 250 Hz.
>>
>> Watch out for the deceptive part of RM-11708. Today there is 
>> indeed
>> NO bandwidth limit in the CW/digital band segments, and yes, 
>> RM-11708
>> would impose a limit of 2800 Hz. Now the deceptive part:  The 
>> effect
>> will be to enable PACTOR-4 which also has a 2.2-2.4 BW 
>> (depending on
>> what you use for your source material), but operates at a much 
>> higher
>> baud rate. The ARRL are right but deceptive. There is no BW 
>> limit
>> now, but the deception is that a BW limit as high as 2800 Hz 
>> will
>> devastate the incumbent fragile narrow band digital modes such 
>> as
>> PSK31, JT65, J9. and amateur-RTTY.
>>
>> The correct arguments to make are: (1) Remove the archaic 300 
>> baud
>> language AND (2) take ALL that occupy more than (for example) 
>> 500  Hz
>> (digital and analog)ABOVE the CW/digital boundary. That is, put 
>> them
>> in the "phone sections" of the bands where there are already 
>> wide
>> band digital and analog signals like ATV, HF-D-STAR, and AM.
>>
>> It becomes regulation by bandwidth, but that is the right thing 
>> to
>> do. We's still have to contend with PACTOR-1 and others that 
>> occupy
>> less than 500 Hz, but in my opinion, that is manageable.
>>
>> Wide and narrow band digital mode just do not mix well in the 
>> same
>> spectrum.
>>
>> 73 Kai, KE4PT
>>
>> On 4/15/2014 10:40 AM, Terry wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> It's still not too late to file comments regarding RM-11708.
>>> Also please copy your directors on your comments.   If anyone 
>>> needs
>>> help in the filing, please let me know as I have helped a 
>>> couple of
>>> folks with their filings.
>>>
>>> The current 300 baud limit is a very real protection mechanism
>>> designed specifically to limit the power spectral density of 
>>> all
>>> users in the CW-only bands. The 300 baud law practically 
>>> limits
>>> useable signals to about 500 Hz in the low portion of the 
>>> band.
>>> Wider band signals that are currently required by law to 
>>> remain
>>> below 300 baud are simply too inefficient and not commercially
>>> viable to find use, hence the FCC was very wise to naturally
>>> protect narrowband RTTY and CW users through the 300 baud 
>>> limit.
>>> Wider-band signals, when operated below 300 baud, do not
>>> appreciably interfere with today's CW and RTTY users due to 
>>> lower
>>> power spectral  density. The baud rate is the key protector 
>>> for
>>> narrowband operations.
>>>
>>> ARRL leadership is ignoring, misstating, and misrepresenting 
>>> the
>>> facts in this issue, both on its website, and now in its board
>>> minutes, as is clearly shown in section 4.2.4 of its recent 
>>> board
>>> minutes of late March.
>>>
>>> Below is more information from Ted, K9NB expressing his 
>>> concerns.
>>>
>>> Terry
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> At the risk of stirring up some uneasiness, but in the sincere
>>> interest of our beloved hobby, I ask for all CW and RTTY 
>>> operators,
>>> and anyone else reading this message, to please consider an
>>> immediate grass roots e-letter writing campaign to any and all 
>>> of
>>> the ARRL Board of Directors, the president of ARRL, and to 
>>> Dave
>>> Sumner. Please feel free to forward this note to anyone, as we 
>>> need
>>> DX and contesting clubs around the country to get involved.
>>> Urgently.
>>>
>>> Perhaps even more importantly, I urge everyone to file ex 
>>> parte
>>> public "comments" at the FCC website regarding RM-11708. The 
>>> chief
>>> engineer told us late comments are welcome and considered as
>>> "comments".
>>>
>>> CW and narrowband modes are under attack by the ARRL in RM 
>>> 11708.
>>> And the ability to openly observe ham radio communications is 
>>> also
>>> under attack.
>>>
>>> The ARRL is failing to represent the interests of CW and 
>>> narrowband
>>>  users in RM-11708, and even at it's March 31 board meeting, 
>>> is on
>>> record saying that "opponents of RM-11708 simply do not 
>>> understand
>>> the rulemaking.
>>>
>>> The facts are clear: the ARRL is proposing through RM-11708 to
>>> remove the 300 baud limit in all of the HF CW subbands, and is
>>> urging the FCC to replace the 300 baud limit with no baud 
>>> limit,
>>> and a 2.8 kHz bandwidth limit.
>>>
>>> The facts of communications engineering are that the removal 
>>> of the
>>>  300 baud limit will allow much greater baud rates, which in 
>>> turn
>>> will make the power spectral density, and thus the 
>>> interference
>>> energy of these new wideband data signals as great or even 
>>> greater
>>> than SSB signals.
>>>
>>> By removing the 300 baud rate, the ARRL is requesting to allow
>>> SSB-like signals (on an interference bandwidth basis) in the
>>> CW-only bands.
>>>
>>>
>>> The FCC created the CW-only subbands expressly for the purpose 
>>> of
>>> protecting these narrowband modes from wider band 
>>> interference.
>>> That's why there is a separate SSB subband.
>>>
>>> The 300 baud rate has protected narrowband CW and RTTY users 
>>> for
>>> decades, since the 300 baud spec naturally limits the power
>>> spectral density (watts/Hz) of transmitted  signals, and thus
>>> discourages the use of wideband data in the CW-only subbands 
>>> due to
>>> the fundamental laws of Communications and signal to noise 
>>> ratio
>>> (see Leon Couch- Digital and Analog Communications, or my 
>>> textbook
>>> on Wireless Communications).
>>>
>>> Thus, wider band data signals limited to 300 baud perform much
>>> poorer than 300 baud narrow band signals, and are not 
>>> practically
>>> viable and pose no current threat. The current law protects CW 
>>> and
>>> RTTY users
>>>> From interference
>>> by the 300 Baud Limit.
>>>
>>> Now, though, the ARRL through RM-11708 is trying to allow much
>>> stronger data interferers that have both much greater baud 
>>> rate AND
>>> much wider bandwidth, into the CW only bands.
>>>
>>> This is a huge attack on the narrowband CW and RTTY users! The
>>> resulting interfernce will be enormous, and is like allowing 
>>> SSB
>>> into the CW bands.
>>>
>>> Also, many have recently pointed out that some of the existing 
>>> or
>>> proposed uses of these new wideband signals will use 
>>> encryption, so
>>> that Official Observers and FCC officials will have difficulty
>>> intercepting communications, thus making the CW and RTTY Bands 
>>> of
>>> our hobby more like private radio or for-profit networks.
>>>
>>> I have filed public comments at the FCC, so has Terry.
>>>
>>> The Last ARRL board of director meeting minutes of 3/31/14 are
>>> quite disturbing, and show wanton disregard for Narrowband 
>>> cw/rtty
>>> users, and complete neglect of the above facts. The ARRL is 
>>> hiding
>>> these fundamental facts, and does not properly present these
>>> obvious technical facts on it's FAQ at the ARRL home page. In
>>> numerous email conversations I had with K1ZZ over the course 
>>> of a
>>> week, he never wanted to recognize these technical facts.
>>>
>>> I ask that all of us who want to maintain the ability to 
>>> operate
>>> CW, RTTY and PSK31, and to preserve the narrowband (300 baud)
>>> protections that allow us to enjoy RTTY, PSK31, and CW... We 
>>> must
>>> become vocal.
>>>
>>> Now we must speak up immediately, and clearly, and we must 
>>> spread
>>> the word for a massive letter writing campaign to ARRL 
>>> leadership,
>>> and with public comments at the FCC.
>>>
>>> If you care about the CW and RTTY sub bands, and want to keep 
>>> out
>>> voice-like interference, I hope you will get Involved! Your 
>>> hobby
>>> needs you!
>>>
>>> Our hobby needs your public activism to protect CW and 
>>> narrowband
>>> data! The ARRL has forsaken its CW, RTTY, and PSK31 members, 
>>> and
>>> now we must do this ourselves at the grass roots level. 
>>> Please
>>> file your public comments at the FCC RM-11708 website.
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>> Ted
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ 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
>>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>
>