[RTTY] RTTY Digest, Vol 135, Issue 20

Fri Mar 14 23:18:52 EDT 2014

Ok, I think we've gotten to the issues with the experiment.  I'm sure our ever-patient list admin is probably sweating a little and we can give him a little rest.  This little really isn't about the experiment or the people involved. We'll get to that in a moment.

Kai wrote me privately, and I'm going to summarize my thoughts here as there's nothing secret in what I'm going to say.  God willing, it will be constructive.  Before I do that I want to take a second and single out Bob, K0RC, for saying something that I think gets to the crux of the matter, at least as I see things:

"Why take things off the list? Nobody learns anything that way." 
...a paraphrase because I hate my new webmail interface, and I like this wording better, Bob :-)

That is fundamentally the issue with unpublished codes.

As many of you know, Kai and I are pretty much in agreement for the whole symbol rate limit is concerned, per se (at least the way I see it--Kai may feel differently).  The issue I have is that the ARRL refused  address "documented codes" in light of the technology it is requesting, as I think this is a long-term issue that goes far beyond Pactor IV.  They had an opportunity to address this in their reply comments and they chose not to.  They have their reasons.  We currently have prominent people designing HF networks with the express purpose of providing some amount of privacy to the communications (I can provide examples).  To avoid this discussion will rend us apart as you are seeing.  You and I want to avoid that.  I believe transparency in the communication will give us a chance to stay together, not to mention provide some wonderful insurance against future spectrum threats.  Part of that simply must start with the encoding of the
 information.  This may require active work on all parties to understand what really is at stake here and to perhaps make some changes.  Thus, RM-11708 isn't a technology issue in my view, nor is it really about "bandwidth".   (There is collateral damage from this that you are now seeing to get some attention now that people are trying to plan for it, but I'm not addressing that right now).

So what does N4II's experiment have to do with all this?

As for Ed's actual experiment, I think this sort of thing in principle is great so I'm glad to hear it was in good faith.  (It would have bothered me much more if it were not.)  It is really unfortunate in the way it came out, and frankly, you can understand why it looks downright specious.  I was kinda hoping nobody would put the microscope on it, but here we are.  Sometimes we put our foots in our mouths, but that is the risk we all take when speaking in public.  God teaches us humility that way...and this isn't about Ed or Kai or me.

It's been pointed out in a matter of hours by independent people that the symbol rate really wasn't an impediment to the goal of the experiment.  Frankly, something like Ed's project would probably get must more press with a STA and lots of press to get people listening.  Perhaps this would be easier if the transmitter were placed on the other side of the world or wherever and the receivers are in the US where the population density allows more sample density.  Then you don't even have to worry about the transmitter and this whole thing is a nonissue as far as part 97 is concerned.  But, it's not my experiment and I'm not going to tell designer what to do. It is unfortunate that nobody pointed out that the symbol rate is not an issue--he might have learned something he didn't expect; always a good outcome!  As you can see this information is readily available in the a ham community, but you can't get it through private conversations ("off list"
 if you will) very easily.  (I can understand just wanting to struggle through things by oneself...I'm slowly trying to unlearn that tendency myself!)

Now, should the symbol rate limit prevent even a first experiment where faster symbol rates are erroneously thought to be required?  I don't think so, provided things are documented and you are being a good neighbor.  But this little experiment or any like it is not an excuse for putting the blinders on and not addressing the elephants in the room.

I want to return to Bob's statement about going "off list":

Right now you have a whole host of (mostly) hams who have gotten Part 5 licenses to transmit at VLF, but I bet there are hundreds of people or more learning from that *because they can see what is going on.*  It's very interesting.  Even though they aren't transmitting there are people listening and learning from that.  Stop for a moment and think about what your operating would be like if you could only understand 10% of the communication on the ham bands, and most of that was by design.  How many of you would have become hams in  the first place?  I think we really need to look at this seriously....just as we don't learn anything "off list" we are also not going to learn anything if radio conversations become private.  Right now, it appears that the primary (though not all) interests in RM-11708 are essentially promoting "off list" communication as part of the driving philosophy.  Honestly, I don't think I would have become a ham all
 those years ago in an environment like that.  I also don't think my son and daughters would find it very interesting either, but we might find out.  We aren't to that point now, but avoiding that path, if that is our desire, may take conscious effort and it needs to start now.

The events around RM-11708 take great pains to avoid this very real issue, and it's going to rend us into pieces the longer we don't seriously address it. 

Hopefully that is helpful to you....even if you disagree you'll understand the concerns and can address them.

Andy K0SM/2

On Friday, March 14, 2014 8:38 PM, "rtty-request at contesting.com" <rtty-request at contesting.com> wrote:

Send RTTY mailing list submissions to
    rtty at contesting.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    rtty-request at contesting.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
    rtty-owner at contesting.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RTTY digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: RM-11708 Vision of the future (Joe Subich, W4TV)
   2. RM ...  (etc) (Edwin Karl)
   3. Re: RM ...  (etc) (john)
   4. About N4II's experiment... (aflowers at frontiernet.net)
   5. Re: About N4II's experiment... (Kok Chen)
   6. Re: About N4II's experiment... (Joe Subich, W4TV)
   7. Re: About N4II's experiment... (Andrew Flowers)
   8. Re: About N4II's experiment... (Joe Subich, W4TV)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:37:44 -0400
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 Vision of the future
Message-ID: <53235A88.2010705 at subich.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

I'm sick and tired of those who claim it is necessary to kill the
patient in order to save it.  If ARRL truly wanted to prevent digital
modes greater than 2800 Hz in the Cw/RTTY bands and still allow for
"fast" data, all they needed to to was ask the FCC to allow RTTY and
Data where other wideband modes (phone and data) are already permitted
and where those modes are effectively limited to 3 KHz for a single
channel or 6 KHz for multiplexed modes and traditional AM.  That
coupled with a 500 Hz limit in the narrow band segments (traditional
CW and RTTY) would have *completely solved the problem* without any
chance of increased interference to the 99%+ of operators who use
traditional narrow band modes.

Anyone who claims 2.8 KHz data is a "necessary update" has their head
stuck so far up a dark and smelly orifice that they have no hope of
ever seeing sunlight.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV

On 3/14/2014 12:53 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
> I'm pretty sick of this doom and gloom crap about necessary updates to
> our massively outdated regulations.
>
> 73,
>
> Paul, N8HM
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Terry <ab5k at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Its currently the year 2020.
>>
>>
>>
>> In mid year 2014 the FCC approved RM-11708 which de-regulated the CW/RTTY
>> bands allowing unspecified digital wide bandwidth codes in the current
>> CW/RTTY band segments.   For a while the old rules were adhered to more or
>> less on  a gentleman's agreement but more and more questionable signals came
>> up taking over the ham bands.
>>
>>
>>
>> In 2016, a radio manufacture out of China came out with a $100 dollar all
>> digital radio that features built in digital voice, CW and data.   This
>> radio operates on the de-regulated RM-11708 (old CW/RTTY) amateur band
>> segments.   The digital encoding algorithms in the radio can be setup in
>> software effectively making it a encrypted radio.  The radio has a built in
>> modem allowing a "fast" 9600 baud connection to the Internet.  The few
>> remaining digital hams call the 9600 modem feature PACTOR 8.  Originally the
>> sail boat crowd latched onto the new radios but once the word got out that
>> they are undetectable, non-hams are purchasing them like wildfire.
>>
>>
>>
>> The RM-11708 de-regulated parts of the bands are total chaos and the FCC has
>> given up on any enforcement.  The last CW and RTTY contests were in 2018.
>> The ARRL has a small staff of 8 people which only serves the SSB operators
>> and has just declared bankruptcy.
>>
>>
>>
>> David Sumner retired from the ARRL one month after the release of RM-11708
>> and now lives on a sailboat in Aruba.   He used to send  beautiful pictures
>> of the Aruba sunset with a drink in his hand enjoying the tropical paradise
>> but with the chaos on the digital portions of the ham bands nothing gets
>> through.
>>
>>
>>
>> I sure miss those pictures.
>>
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> Everyone have a good contest and enjoy it while we can
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 73 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
>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:42:17 -0500
From: Edwin Karl <edk0kl at centurytel.net>
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: [RTTY] RM ...  (etc)
Message-ID: <532369A9.3020100 at centurytel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

It seems to me the whole problem is the League should first
sell these ideas to the membership, THEN do the FCC proposal.
Not surprise (sand bag) us first.

Especially after previous attempts have backfired.

For supposed professionals, this is the worst "sell job" ever!

That's my opinion, I may be wrong.

ed K0KL

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 21:44:39 +0000
From: john <w8wej at citynet.net>
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM ...  (etc)
Message-ID: <53237847.3020100 at citynet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

you are not wrong--
   in my opinion that the arrl has lost,(if they ever had it),, and 
abandoned the wishes of the membership for the leaderships own self 
serving interests...  it is time to vote em out..
Ive read some of the arrls  condescending responses   -"-we are right, 
set down and shut up" serfs
my(I hope , former director ), never bothered to respond to my email 
concerns..
vote em out
73 john w8wej

On 3/14/2014 20:42, Edwin Karl wrote:
> It seems to me the whole problem is the League should first
> sell these ideas to the membership, THEN do the FCC proposal.
> Not surprise (sand bag) us first.
>
> Especially after previous attempts have backfired.
>
> For supposed professionals, this is the worst "sell job" ever!
>
> That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
>
> ed K0KL
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4336 / Virus Database: 3722/7197 - Release Date: 03/14/14
>
>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: "aflowers at frontiernet.net" <aflowers at frontiernet.net>
To: RTTY Mailing List <rtty at contesting.com>
Subject: [RTTY] About N4II's experiment...
Message-ID:
    <1394836180.1050.YahooMailNeo at web120903.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

This will be fun, I promise.

Kai brought up a comments by Dr. Edgar Callaway, N4II,?that saying that an actual real experiment was cut short because of the outdated symbol rate rule.? I've been through the comments, and it looks like this is the only real experiment by a commenter that seems to have been tragically and unfairly hampered by that outdated symbol rate...there may be others, but my crack legal staff hasn't had time to read everything.

So, the actual comments are here:

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520962607

Have a look.??Work through it.? Is there anything in there that makes you this experiment was, say, less than serious?? 

(Honestly Kai, your baloney detector should have gone off instantly in even a cursory reading.? You did read it, didn't you?)

I decided not to reference this in my reply comments since these comments may have been done in ignorance (I have no idea who N4II is), but since Kai wants to hold it up as an example we ought to at least look closely.

If this goes well maybe we can have a bonus round....

Andy K0SM/2

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:20:09 -0700
From: Kok Chen <chen at mac.com>
To: RTTY Mailing List <rtty at contesting.com>
Cc: Andrew Flowers <aflowers at frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] About N4II's experiment...
Message-ID: <C975CF31-D482-499A-9033-518ED1F8D000 at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII

When I first read it, back when it was first posted on the FCC site, my immediate reaction was, why would the FCC take what was suggested seriously?

You never, ever use baud rate to measure timing.  

In the digital world, you'd oversample the bits at a couple of hundred kilo samples/second if needed, and do a cross-correlation to get much higher temporal resolution.  In fact, if you use a Barker code or a long PN code (arguably illegal for amateurs), you can get better SNR from a sequence and get a very nice sharp peak.  If you can't use a Barker code or a PN sequence, even a series of RYRYRY can be cross correlated.  

For goodness sakes, you don't decimate it to the baud rate and *then* take a cross-correlation -- *that* would give the poor resolution as reported.  All of us have sound cards that can sample to 48,000 samples/second or better, right?

For doing the measurements he was attempting, it does not take a higher baud rate.  It just takes good engineering practice.

By the way, the exercise may be futile anyway when there is strong multipath (or even when one path splits into two rays).  A rectangular pulse sent to the ionosphere goes through both Doppler spreading and multi-path -- what you receive back is no longer a nicely shape rectangular pulse.  And the propagation velocity through a dispersive media may not be the speed of light either. 

73
Chen, W7AY

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:20:38 -0400
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
To: rtty at contesting.com, Andrew Flowers <aflowers at frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] About N4II's experiment...
Message-ID: <53238EC6.8020703 at subich.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

Your BS detector should have certainly gone off - Wikipedia: "In 
telecommunication and electronics, baud (/?b??d/, unit symbol "Bd") is 
synonymous to symbols per second or pulses per second."  As long as the
alleged 1 ms pulses don't happen more than 150 times per second they
would have met the 300 baud test.  Baud does not define the duration
(or duty cycle) of the pulse only the frequency (or repetition rate)
of the pulse.

Further, the duration of the pulse should be immaterial in measuring
the propagation delay if one is measuring arrival of the leading edge
of the pulse.  Finally, since the pseudo random nature of the pulse
train is known one can also compare the elapsed time between leading
edges with the actual transmission data just as easily as one can
measure the absolute length of the pulse.  Measuring the time between
pulses is probably more accurate (if the experiment requires knowledge
of changes in propagation delay) than measuring the pulse length as
any measurement error would be a smaller fraction of the larger
interval.

Even a BA in Communications can distinguish when PhD means piled higher
and deeper ...

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV

On 3/14/2014 6:29 PM, aflowers at frontiernet.net wrote:
>
>
> This will be fun, I promise.
>
> Kai brought up a comments by Dr. Edgar Callaway, N4II, that saying that an actual real experiment was cut short because of the outdated symbol rate rule.  I've been through the comments, and it looks like this is the only real experiment by a commenter that seems to have been tragically and unfairly hampered by that outdated symbol rate...there may be others, but my crack legal staff hasn't had time to read everything.
>
> So, the actual comments are here:
>
> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520962607
>
> Have a look.  Work through it.  Is there anything in there that makes you this experiment was, say, less than serious?
>
> (Honestly Kai, your baloney detector should have gone off instantly in even a cursory reading.  You did read it, didn't you?)
>
> I decided not to reference this in my reply comments since these comments may have been done in ignorance (I have no idea who N4II is), but since Kai wants to hold it up as an example we ought to at least look closely.
>
> If this goes well maybe we can have a bonus round....
>
> Andy K0SM/2
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:49:58 -0400
From: Andrew Flowers <aflowers at frontiernet.net>
To: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
Cc: "rtty at contesting.com" <rtty at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] About N4II's experiment...
Message-ID: <92DEDA4C-DBB1-42D3-AFBD-746802F8EE62 at frontiernet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset=us-ascii

Joe and Chen have skipped ahead to the *double-secret* bonus round that I wasn't even going to tell you guys about....but yes, rectangular pulses are really poor way of going about this.  Given the number of radar junkies around I'm sure any discussion could have found a better way to do this experiment.  The interested parties can look up "pulse compression" in radar-speak, and it is not to hard to grasp in concept even if you glaze over at scary math.

BUT...for this first round I am looking for something a little more fundamental and well within the grasp of everyone on the list....

(And no offense taken, Joe)

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 20:07:43 -0400
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
To: Andrew Flowers <aflowers at frontiernet.net>
Cc: "rtty at contesting.com" <rtty at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] About N4II's experiment...
Message-ID: <532399CF.2010405 at subich.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

> BUT...for this first round I am looking for something a little more
> fundamental

Let's see ... grayline propagation is not more predominant on 160/80
than on other bands.  It's resent and can be demonstrated all the way
through 30 MHz.

The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s - at 1,609.34 meters per mile
that's 186,282 miles per second or 186.3 miles per ms not 282.3 miles
per ms as claimed multiple times in the comments.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV

On 3/14/2014 7:49 PM, Andrew Flowers wrote:
>
> Joe and Chen have skipped ahead to the *double-secret* bonus round that I wasn't even going to tell you guys about....but yes, rectangular pulses are really poor way of going about this.  Given the number of radar junkies around I'm sure any discussion could have found a better way to do this experiment.  The interested parties can look up "pulse compression" in radar-speak, and it is not to hard to grasp in concept even if you glaze over at scary math.
>
> BUT...for this first round I am looking for something a little more fundamental and well within the grasp of everyone on the list....
>
> (And no offense taken, Joe)
>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

------------------------------

End of RTTY Digest, Vol 135, Issue 20
*************************************