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

Kai k.siwiak at ieee.org
Sat Mar 29 18:39:31 EDT 2014 

In the Mon Dieux department, D-STAR users hold regularly scheduled D-STAR  nets 
in the
phone portions of the HF bands. Just look for the 6 kHz wide signals, or see
    http://www.dstarinfo.com/DSTARHFNet.aspx
That's the new sleeping elephant in the room!

Good news, though, since D-STAR provides an interleaved digital voice and data
channel it is a precedent for digital data (at wide bandwidths) on the Phone 
side of the boundary.

One correction to my "band plan" basics: high power modes like RTTY should stay 
above
14.080 when possible to give the low power modes a break.

-Kai

On 3/29/2014 5:20 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
> > 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>

More information about the RTTY mailing list