[RTTY] RM-11708 FCC comments will close soon

[Ed Muns]

I agree that bandwidth segmentation is the crux of RM-11708--retaining
sub-bands where <500 Hz signals are protected from the QRM of wide-bandwidth
signals.

Unfortunately, we can't escape some techno-babble because the proponents of
RM-11708 are theoretically correct that there is no bandwidth limit in the
CW, RTTY and data only sub-bands.  Refuting this draws us into the technical
debate to show that wide-bandwidth signals are effectively impractical with
the current symbol rate limit.

However, the mental model described below is the essence of the issue with
RM-11708 once all the technical sparring is stripped away.  The take-away is
that our networks of traffic pathways (from hiking trails and sidewalks to
highways and race tracks) are shared among many incompatible kinds of
transportation.  Sometimes the sharing is spatial such as sidewalks vs.
streets.  Sometimes the sharing is temporal such as when normal roads are
temporarily closed for a footrace.  The key point is that there are
mechanisms for sharing.  RM-11708 seeks to eliminate the notion of sharing
by letting wide-bandwidth signals operate anywhere on the HF bands.

Ed W0YK

-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe Subich,
W4TV
Sent: 20 April, 2014 11:55
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FCC comments will close soon


Consider RM-11708 from a different point of view - forget the technical
mumbo-jumbo and look at if from a practical point of view ...

Data rate (speed) is not the sine qua non of communications any more
than speed is the only consideration in transportation.  If it were,
we would all be driving Formula One, Indy Car or NASCAR Sprint Cup
cars at 200+ miles an hour to go to the corner grocery for a gallon
of milk and a dozen eggs.

Instead, prudent planning and regulation recognizes that different
speeds (bandwidth) are appropriate in different circumstances and
segregates those speeds to different places - highways (~70 MPH),
general roadways (~50 MPH), school and residential zones (~20 - 35
MPH).  Enlightened planning even sets aside special bicycle lanes,
hiking/jogging paths and, in some communities, slow speed vehicle
("golf cart") paths and/or equestrian trails on which automobiles,
motorcycles and other motorized vehicles are not permitted.

Consider the traditional "CW and RTTY bands" the amateur equivalent of
the hiking, jogging, equestrian and golf cart trails.  They are there
to protect the older, slower modes from being run over by the Formula
One and Sprint cars ... they serve to permit training in, and use of,
modes that are generally no longer used anywhere else in modern
communications.  They represent the true "international park" nature of
amateur radio.

Permitting wideband, high speed, high spectral power density data modes
in the traditional narrow band preserve is like putting race cars onto
Churchill Downs in the middle of the Kentucky Derby - it would kill all
the horses/jockeys and mean the end of horse racing!  Allowing 2.8 KHz
data modes in the traditional CW & RTTY bands will surely mean the end
of narrow band modes - perhaps not in a day, a week or a month but
certainly over a few years.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV





On 4/20/2014 10:03 AM, Terry wrote:
> Please everyone.   It's very important that CW, RTTY and even SSB users
> submit a comment AGAINST RM-11708 today.   We a told that the FCC will
> probably close comments on Monday.   You do not have to be technical and a
> simple "I am AGAINST RM-11708" is fine.  The filling process only takes 5
> minutes.   A sample PDF file that takes you thru the simple "Express"
filing
> steps on the FCC web site can be found at:
>
> http://64.128.19.154/RM11708.pdf
>
>
> Please forward this to other reflectors and hams.   We need to get the
word
> out!
>
> If you want to get a technical feel about why RM-11708 is wrong, take a
look
> at the filings below.   The comments on record by Dan, W5DNT very clearly
> state the issues.   Other filings are more technical in nature but are
right
> on target as to why RM-11708 is BAD for amateur radio and should NOT be
> approved.
>
>
> W5DNT   http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521098147
>
> N9NB    http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521095878
>          http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521095484
>
> K2YG    http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view;id=7521098630
>
> K0SM    http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520963762
> 	  http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521064873
> 	  http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521065139
>
> W4TV    http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017583105
>
> AB5K    http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521095721
>
>
> Terry    AB5K
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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