[RTTY] Response to ARRL request for inputs for new Band Plan

[Terry]

Yes I agree the band plan should address beacons.   The current ARRL Band
Plan includes the NCDXF beacons and the current region 2 band plan allows
beacons from 14.099 to 14.101.   So if we modify the current ARRL plan or
modifying the region 2 plan, there are place holders for a small segment for
beacons that should be carried forward into a recommended plan.

In my experience beacon interference is very small when compared to the
interference we are getting from the unattended packet operations.
Unattended packet and making sure that RM-11708 experiments are outside
primary digital sub bands are the main issues that need to be addressed.





-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Wa3frp
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:00 PM
To: rtty at contesting.com
Cc: ab5k at hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Response to ARRL request for inputs for new Band Plan





Terry,
 
This is a very good idea and I support it. 
 
Please consider the proliferation of beacons -  outside of the NCDXF HF
beacons which are coordinated and use minimal bandwidth. Please also see the
article in February 2014 QST, A 10 Meter Beacon Transmitter.  I am not sure
why ARRL is encouraging more beacons in the HF space. 
 
Also, please address the ARRL Morse Code Transmissions on 3.5815 which,
along with the ARRL Digital transmissions on 3.5975, both fall into the ARRL
band plan for RTTY.  When I asked ARRL about this a while ago, the ARRL
reply answer was:

"... When the band was reallocated a few years back, I had in fact put in a
concerted effort to find a new frequency.  I enlisted the assistance of a
few hams - both local and out of state - to monitor prospects.  I also
worked with some members of the NTS community to locate clear areas.
Unfortunately, it was extremely difficult to find a new one.  (At the time,
the NTS community had the same problem.)  We found that there were little -
to no - segments free to where W1AW can QSY.  Clearly, had we moved we would
have interfered with some *pre-existing* net, or calling frequency, or
meeting spot, etc.
 
W1AW has operated on 3581.5 KHz for its CW transmissions for more than a few
decades.  Because we have an established presence here - and since there was
little free area available - we were left with little choice but to stay
here.  Since CW is allowed here - CW is allowed pretty much across most of
the entire amateur spectrum - and given the issues stated above, it put to
rest the option of changing frequency.

On this note, I would like to point out that we don't claim to "own" this
frequency, any more than any others should claim to own the frequencies they
use..."
 
Thanks and 73,

Russ - WA3FRP
 wa3frp at aol.com 
 
 
 
1.       A few  submit band plans that are useful but are not 100 percent
aligned.  A lot of folks want to get involved but just don't have time or
possibly technical /writing experience to get involved. 

2.       We organize, form a committee of recognized RTTY operators and
develop a plan.    That plan is published in one week just in time for folks
who are busy to simply send a email to the band plan committee saying "I
agree with the band plan inputs provided by the " RTTY Spectral Defense Band
Plan Committee".     They can also add in personal comments as well but
having 'a plan" shows we are serious and aligned.  It also saves the band
plan committee sorting thru a bunch of non-aligned plans.






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