[RTTY] Digital Operators Band Plan Committee - Current thoughts and status

Joe Subich, W4TV lists at subich.com
Sat Mar 29 17:20:41 EDT 2014 

 > Modes with BW greater than 500 Hz (like D-STAR data+voice / 6 kHZ BW,
 > and PACTOR modes 2.2 kHz) should be above 14.150. If regs do not move
 > PACTOR into the phone bands, they should stay above 14.140 kHz.

Mon Deu!  We agree about something - except that D-STAR is not legal
below 50 MHz because the protocol (CODEC) is not publicly documented.
In addition, its 6 KHz bandwidth is also illegal based on 97.307(f)(2):
  > No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications
  > quality phone emission of the same modulation type. [the remainder
  > does not apply since D-STAR is neither ISB or multiplexed phone
  > and image emission]

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 3/29/2014 4:04 PM, Kai wrote:
> Mark,
> Just my opinion, and not in any way complete. Painting with a broad
> brush, and using 20 m as an example, the following appear to be basics:
>
> CW to favor the lower portion of the bands, 14.000 to 14.070, (but of
> course is permitted 14.000 to 14.350)
> Weak signal digital modes (psk/wsjt) to favor 14.070 to 14.080
> High power modes like RTTY to favor    14.070 to 14.150(?)  (except
> 14.099-14.101 for beacons)
>
> Modes with BW greater than 500 Hz (like D-STAR data+voice / 6 kHZ BW,
> and PACTOR modes 2.2 kHz) should be above 14.150. If regs do not move
> PACTOR into the phone bands, they should stay above 14.140 kHz.
>
> Be mindful that these are voluntary band plans, and during a contest
> modes like RTTY might spread out below and above the normal
> recommendations.
>
> 73
> Kai, KE4PT
>
>
>
> On 3/29/2014 1:46 PM, Mark N2QT wrote:
>> Has the group been able to put together a bandplan recommendation?
>> I'm at the point
>> in my comments where I am struggling over what to recommend going
>> forward.  Once
>> I get past the generalities it gets hard! (And time is running out).
>>
>> Mark. N2QT
>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 1:56 PM, Terry<ab5k at hotmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> We are slowly getting organized.   We have been flooded with personal
>>> emails
>>> and phone calls  and appreciate all of the comments and
>>> suggestions.   We
>>> are certainly open for inputs and right now the feeling is we need to
>>> unite
>>> and attack this in two ways:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.       Provide  inputs for the ARRL's Band Plan.  The priority is
>>> inputs
>>> for the ARRL as that is under a time schedule and we have two weeks
>>> remaining
>>>
>>> 2.       The other avenue is education.   Here are the proposed  pieces:
>>>
>>> a.       Develop a white paper on both the engineering and deployment
>>> flaws
>>> of Winlink and other automated digital packet robots.  We have a  two
>>> page
>>> draft but its need inputs from experts who can make it technically
>>> correct
>>> and polish it up.
>>>
>>> b.      Develop a white paper on potential interference from RM-11708
>>> and
>>> why it needs to be sandboxed into its own sub band.   This needs
>>> development
>>> from the ground up.
>>>
>>> c.       Develop a short white paper documenting the percent of
>>> automated
>>> packet users versus legacy SSB, CW and RTTY modes.   There was a post
>>> to the
>>> reflector from a KH6 as I recall that had some numbers.  That needs
>>> to be
>>> documented with supporting data and published.
>>>
>>> d.      Develop a Power Point presentation along  the lines of "Spectral
>>> Defense - Dangers from Within".     There we talk about the bottom
>>> end of 40
>>> meters that's shared between CW, RTTY and SSB and talk about the
>>> interference to the FT5 DX-Expedition by unattended packet.   Then
>>> follow up
>>> a view of the spreadsheet shows the "mine field" of unattended packet
>>> stations that are there and just waiting to QRM you.   Other slides
>>> would
>>> discuss the bending of the rules / legality,  Spectrum grab,  IARU
>>> concerns
>>> about automated robot spectrum grab, a slide from a Emergency
>>> Coordinator
>>> that rejected Winlink for his two Texas counties due to speed, and the
>>> request for 15% of the spectrum band.
>>>
>>> e.      We also need a 5 minute u-tube video demonstrating Winlink
>>> showing
>>> that it takes 5 minutes of actual air time to transmit a simple one line
>>> message.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> After the education content is complete, we need help from everyone
>>> on this
>>> reflector to share the educational information with ARRL officials,
>>> other
>>> reflectors, clubs and anyone who will listen.    I have requested a
>>> slot to
>>> do a presentation at the Central Texas DX and Contest Club and also
>>> plan do
>>> a presentation at the Temple Amateur Radio Club.  I am scheduled for
>>> a 30
>>> minute talk at HamComm hamfest in Dallas on N1MM Contesting Software and
>>> I'll certainly hijack a few minutes out of that talk to discuss the
>>> above
>>> content and concerns and how folks can help.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the last few days, there has been daily calls with John Stratton -
>>> ARRL
>>> Vice Director West Gulf Division.   The information is also being
>>> passed to
>>> our Director.  With the proper content we can start a education
>>> program with
>>> all league officials expressing all of our  concerns.     We have
>>> good data,
>>> we have the majority we just need to organize and get the word out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We need volunteers to help on the white papers.   I have someone in mind
>>> that not only has superior technical skills but is also  well  respected
>>> both at ARRL HQ and across the world.   I sure hope he volunteers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are a few ideas that we consider nuclear options that are
>>> definitely
>>> off the table for now.  There are other thoughts and  ideas are
>>> coming in
>>> that are very useful.    Thanks for all of the inputs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>

More information about the RTTY mailing list