[RTTY] ARRL board of Directors meeting this week

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

 > In my comments to the FCC, I suggested that it would be less
 > disruptive to authorize 2.8kHz ONLY for the automated subbands and
 > above.  Below the Pactor playgrounds, it would be reasonable and
 > somewhat in keeping with current practices to set the bandwidth limit
 > at 500Hz.

That's reasonable although there is also plenty of room in the "phone
bands" for another wideband emission type.  All ARRL needed to do was
ask the FCC to remove the prohibition on RTTY and data emissions in
*all* of the HF amateur bands, allow bandwidth up to 2.8 or 3.0 KHz
outside the bands in which phone and image are excluded - in other
words treat data *exactly as image modes are currently treated*.
Image modes are allowed any where and are limited to 500 Hz outside the
traditional "phone" bands.  With a few minor "tweaks" to the rules -
data transmissions would have to be identified every *five* minutes via
CW, Baudot, PSK31 or voice, and all data codes/modulation types would
be required to be fully documented *with* working decoding (receive
only) software available on a *freely downloadable basis*, all data
mode systems would be required to include *functioning* channel busy
detectors, and no modulation type could use "frequency spreading" or
"hopping" - one would have a set of rules that served the needs of
*all amateurs* without the potential to destroy all narrow band modes.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 1/13/2014 6:20 PM, Michael Adams wrote:
> I've kept my mouth shut because I'm a fairly new subscriber to the
> list, and my own views on the subject probably wouldn't be
> particularly popular here....but I've never been that successful at
> self-censorship.  So, here's my $0.02 worth.
>
> Something that you might want to consider, even though it's late in
> the game.... if the League were on the level about wanting to remove
> the symbol rate limitation (without giving license to
> spectrum-consuming attempts at HF broadband) while otherwise
> maintaining the status quo, perhaps they would be agreeable to a
> tweak to the proposal:
>
> In my comments to the FCC, I suggested that it would be less
> disruptive to authorize 2.8kHz ONLY for the automated subbands and
> above.  Below the Pactor playgrounds, it would be reasonable and
> somewhat in keeping with current practices to set the bandwidth limit
> at 500Hz.
>
> (A narrower constraint might be appreciated in the usually CW-only
> segments of the bands, but I figured a simple counterproposal had a
> better chance of success.)
>
> That, of course, does nothing to resolve concerns about the
> non-open-source nature of Pactor 2+, many Winlink users'  apparent
> inability to listen before transmitting, the limited spectrum
> available for non-CW operations on 30m, or our apparent inability to
> adapt among ourselves as circumstances evolve.   However, given the
> League's stance, the write-in campaign from Winlink users, and the
> FCC's apparent receptiveness to the proposal (they did, after all,
> invite someone to propose a new rule in their report to Congress a
> bit over a year ago, if you read between the lines)... the ship has
> not only sailed, but it's probably out past the breakwater now.
>
> Efforts at this point might be better spent on trying to get a course
> correction, rather than trying to reel the ship all the way back to
> the dock.
>
> 73
>