[RTTY] [DFWcontest] Please forward this far and wide, its important if you care about CW and RTTY

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

The ARRL FAQ is Goebbels-style propaganda ... it sets up a strawman
(e.g., unrestricted bandwidth) that is currently technologically
impossible in order to scare those who don't know any better into
supporting the poorly thought-out ARRL  proposal.

If the scare tactics don't work, it uses intimidation by calling those
who don't agree "uninformed" and unaware.

Let's see ...

 > 1)      The current rules do not restrict bandwidth in the cw/digital
 > portion of the band, only data rate

1 KHz shift for FSK is certainly a *bandwidth* limitation.

> 2) Current rules allow for very wide emissions as long as they are
> under 300 baud, therefore the 2.8KHz bw is an actual tightening of
> the current rules.

All of which is not technologically possible with current SSB
transceivers due to their IF filters.  Even SCS the developer of
PACTOR acknowledge the limitations of SSB transceivers and design
their protocols to function with those limitations - not some
theoretical and currently impractical SDR product to be defined.

> 3) Many of the new and exciting digital modes will be off limits to
> US operators until the data rate rule is removed.

These proposed new rules do nothing to enable new and exciting mixed
payload (voice + data, image + data, voice + image + data, etc.) modes.
The rules continue to maintain an artificial separation based on mode
rather than spectral characteristics (bandwidth).

> 4) Band plan issues are done in separate rule making and are not
> addressed in RM-11708. Frequency selection is done on the basis of
> band planning, not FCC regulations.

Band plans do not have the effect or regulation.  Did the banplans
prevent hours of interference to FT5ZM?  Do they prevent the daily
interference to RTTY pile-ups on 20 and 17 meters or the daily
interference to PSK31 and WSPR on 30 meters from PACTOR 3 RMS ops?
Band plans and "first come first served" don't protect RTTY contesters
against intentional QRM by automatic Winlink RMS and their syncophants.

The ARRL FAQ contains very little in the way of FACTS and is a misuse
of organization resources to promote the narrow special interest of
two directors at the expense of the best interests of amateur radio.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 5/2/2014 4:06 PM, Dan Bates wrote:
> Hi  gang, there are obviously some very strongly held opinions on this
> proposed rule.  The purpose of my post was to let you know that not all CW
> operators are opposed to this proposal.
>
>
>
> I would encourage each of you to read the ARRL FAQ on RM-11708
> http://www.arrl.org/rm-11708-faq as many of the things we have been
> discussing are addressed.
>
>
>
> 1)      The current rules do not restrict bandwidth in the cw/digital
> portion of the band, only data rate.
>
> 2)      Current rules allow for very wide emissions as long as they are
> under 300 baud, therefore the 2.8KHz bw is an actual tightening of the
> current rules.
>
> 3)      Many of the new and exciting digital modes will be off limits to US
> operators until the data rate rule is removed.
>
> 4)      Band plan issues are done in separate rule making and are not
> addressed in RM-11708. Frequency selection is done on the basis of band
> planning, not FCC regulations.
>
>
>
> On a personal note, I'm anxious to try FSK441 high speed meteor scatter mode
> on 10 meters.
>
>
>
> See you on the next pileup.
>
>
>
> Dan n5tm
>
>
>
> From: Dan Bates [mailto:n5tm at katytx.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:46 AM
> To: 'DFWcontest at yahoogroups.com'; 'ctdxcc at kkn.net'; 'rtty at contesting.com'
> Cc: 'Ted Rappaport'; 'Dan White'; 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'Hal Kennedy'
> Subject: RE: [DFWcontest] Please forward this far and wide, its important if
> you care about CW and RTTY
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Terry [mailto:ab5k at hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:36 AM
> To: DFWcontest at yahoogroups.com <mailto:DFWcontest at yahoogroups.com> ;
> ctdxcc at kkn.net <mailto:ctdxcc at kkn.net> ; rtty at contesting.com
> <mailto:rtty at contesting.com>
> Cc: 'Ted Rappaport'; 'Dan White'; 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'Hal Kennedy'
> Subject: RE: [DFWcontest] Please forward this far and wide, its important if
> you care about CW and RTTY
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Dan,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your inputs.
>
>
>
> First, the 300 baud symbol rate that the ARRL is asking to be removed is
> something that protects us.    The ARRL is looking at this from the side of
> WinLink which is simple as they want to run Pactor 4 in the US.    If
> RM-11708 is approved, there is a wideband digital waveform call STAAG that
> has 40 db superiority over narrow band waveforms that would be legal.    Do
> we really want a waveform with 40 db superiority running roughshod over
> narrow band CW /RTTY?
>
>
>
> Second,   sub bands division is used to separate waveforms that are not
> compatible.    That why 2.8 KHz SSB operations are at the top of the band
> and narrow band CW/digital is at the bottom of the band.   If RM-11708 had
> provisions for a sub band that protected traditional CW/data and a sub band
> for wider 2.8 KHz bandwidth digital experimentation that would go a long way
> in solving some of the issues.
>
>
>
> 97.307(f) no non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a quality
> phone emission.  (this the current regulation for digital emissions today)
>
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2002-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2002-title47-vol5
> -sec97-307.pdf
>
>
>
> If the ARRL had allowed outside technical experts help steer RM-11708, then
> the above concerns plus several others would have been addressed.
> Unfortunately they opted to form the steering committee with  NO input from
> anyone representing narrow band interests and the result is that RM-11708 is
> one sided and caters to a "special interest group".
>
>
>
> Terry  AB5K
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: DFWcontest at yahoogroups.com <mailto:DFWcontest at yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:DFWcontest at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Bates
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 9:06 AM
> To: DFWcontest at yahoogroups.com <mailto:DFWcontest at yahoogroups.com> ;
> ctdxcc at kkn.net <mailto:ctdxcc at kkn.net> ; rtty at contesting.com
> <mailto:rtty at contesting.com>
> Cc: 'Ted Rappaport'; 'Dan White'; 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'Hal Kennedy'
> Subject: RE: [DFWcontest] Please forward this far and wide, its important if
> you care about CW and RTTY
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm sorry, but I have disagree with these arguments.  Only the US is stuck
> with this archaic baud rate rule.
>
>
>
> The other thing I must laugh about is cw advocates embracing the RTTY
> community.  RTTY is every bit as wide and annoying to a cw station as any
> proposed 2.8KHz digital signal.  The reason RTTY falls under the 300 baud
> limit is that it is so inefficient in use of bandwidth.
>
>
>
> Amateur radio has always been on the forefront of technology and a leader in
> exploring new techniques and propagation modes.  To try and limit the HF
> bands 300 baud is similar to trying to maintain spark gap.
>
>
>
> The new proposed rule will allow us to experiment with some exciting new
> modulation modes and keep amateur radio a leader in the progression of radio
> communications.
>
>
>
> Oh, by the way, I'm a CW Ops member and run a CW class every week.
>
>
>
> Dan n5tm
>
>
>
> From: Terry [mailto:ab5k at hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 7:31 AM
> To: ctdxcc at kkn.net <mailto:ctdxcc at kkn.net> ; DFWcontest at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DFWcontest at yahoogroups.com> ; rtty at contesting.com
> <mailto:rtty at contesting.com>
> Cc: 'Ted Rappaport'; 'Dan White'; 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'Hal Kennedy'
> Subject: [DFWcontest] Please forward this far and wide, its important if you
> care about CW and RTTY
>
>
>
>
>
> CTDXCC, RTTY reflector and DFW Contesters,
>
> Many of us know Ted, N9NB, and his contributions to amateur and the
> engineering world. For those who may now know Ted, here is a link to a
> page on the ARRL site where you can get a feel for Ted's credentials.
> Here is a quote off the ARRL site: "Ted Rappaport is one of the most
> renowned professors in communications engineering and is widely known from
> his textbooks, research centers and products,".
> <http://www.arrl.org/news/ted-rappaport-n9nb-named-recipient-of-ieee-educati
> <http://www.arrl.org/news/ted-rappaport-n9nb-named-recipient-of-ieee-educati
> %0bon-award>
> on-award>
>
> Ted is right on target and RM-11708 needs to be STOPPED! The ARRL is WRONG
> and ramming this thru the FCC without any input from low bandwidth CW and
> Data users. If you have not filled a FCC comment please do so. There is
> still a short time left.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Terry AB5K
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CTDXCC [mailto:ctdxcc-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of Ted Rappaport
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 9:30 PM
> To: CTDXCC
> Subject: Re: [CTDXCC] CTDXCC Digest, Vol 136, Issue
>
> Please forward this far and wide, its important if you care about CW.
>
> I hope all who care about the future of CW and RTTY will file thoughtful,
> rationale comments AGAINST RM 11708. We desperately need more AGAINST
> comments to overturn this dreadful proposed rulemaking!
>
> It takes only a couple of minutes, and here are clear instructions how to do
> it:
>
> http://64.128.19.154/RM11708.pdf
>
> In making this flawed rule making, the ARRL is essentially declaring war on
> all CW and RTTY users of the HF bands, and it is as if they filed a law suit
> against incumbent hams in that spectrum at the FCC.
>
> This is a pure and simple spectrum grab at the expense of CW and RTTY hams.
>
> First, the ARRL did not seek broad approval, this is a back room dealing and
> a rule making that attepts to strip a decades-old protection on
> human-to-human protection of CW and RTTY/PSK31 users. 300 baud is ESSENTIAL
> to keeping a bandwidth containment on all low band users. The RM 11708
> attempts to STRIP this vital protection, and make the baud rate UNLIMITED.
> Then, they proposed to widen the bandwidth for any data signal to 2.8 kHz,
> wider than today's SSB Signals! Today's CW and RTTY signals are no more than
> a few hundred HZ wide......now the ARRL wants to fill the lower HF bands
> with data users that are 2.8 kHz wide!
>
> If we don't speak out against this, at once, we are in jeopardy of losing
> our FCC-protected status, as the 300 baud limit protects narrowband users,
> like CW and RTTY operators, from harmful interference! And the low bands
> will be populated with machine-to-machine automated stations that do not
> properly identify themselves or listen bvefore transmiting! Ham radio as we
> love it and know it will be gone! WE MUST SPEAK OUT!
>
> Please spread the word- we MUST get hundreds of more AGAINST comments at the
> FCC if we want to stop this thing and enjoy CW in our retirement years! I
> have done the analysis, I have tried talking logic to the league. I have
> done much expert witnessing in my career on spectrum.
>
> THIS IS A PURE AND SIMPLE SPECTRUM GRAB BY THE ARRL AND WE MUST SPEAK OUT
> AGAINST THE ARRL AND AGAINST RM 11708 IF WE CARE ABOUT USING CW AND RTTY!
>
> Please spread the word, we must get public comments on file. This is not the
> time to sit back and do nothing! Educate yourself- See that the ARRL has put
> up a red herring, where they 'make up" some bogeyman wideband signal that
> could not exist practically, only to strip away the 300 baud limit that
> protects the narrowband CW and RTTY users.
>
> Please speak out, we must save our hobby if we care about enjoying the human
> to human modes of CW and RTTY.
>
> Ted
>
> __._,_.___
>
>
>
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/conversations/messages/4541;
> _ylc=X3oDMTJxczg3Zzh2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA
> 2MzEwOARtc2dJZAM0NTQxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTA0NDk0Ng--?act=re
> ply&messageNum=4541> Reply via web post
>
> .
>
>
> <mailto:ab5k at hotmail.com?subject=RE%3A%20%5BDFWcontest%5D%20Please%20forward
> %20this%20far%20and%20wide%2C%20its%20important%20if%20you%20care%20about%20
> CW%20%20and%20RTTY> Reply to sender
>
> .
>
>
> <mailto:DFWcontest at yahoogroups.com?subject=RE%3A%20%5BDFWcontest%5D%20Please
> %20forward%20this%20far%20and%20wide%2C%20its%20important%20if%20you%20care%
> 20about%20CW%20%20and%20RTTY> Reply to group
>
> .
>
>
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=
> X3oDMTJmY2dnMnFsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEw
> OARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzOTkwNDQ5NDY-> Start a New Topic
>
> .
>
>
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/conversations/topics/4537;_y
> lc=X3oDMTM1cWtnN2hnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2M
> zEwOARtc2dJZAM0NTQxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTA0NDk0NgR0cGNJZAM0N
> TM3> Messages in this topic (5)
>
>    _____
>
>
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOGEzbHIzBF
> 9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEwOARzZWMDdnRsBHNsaw
> N2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzOTkwNDQ5NDY-> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlazZxNjg4BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkA
> zc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEwOARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTA0N
> Dk0Ng-->
>
> .  <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> Privacy .
> <mailto:DFWcontest-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> Unsubscribe .  <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> Terms of
> Use
>
> .
>
>
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=76109386/grpspId=1705063108/msgI
> d=4541/stime=1399044946>
>
> <http://y.analytics.yahoo.com/fpc.pl?ywarid=515FB27823A7407E&a=1000131032227
> 9>
>
> __,_._,___
>
>