[RTTY] RM-11708

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Yesterday, I sent the following e-mail to members of the ARRL Executive
Committee and my director.  I urge anyone interested in/concerned about
the future of amateur radio to contact their director and the Executive
Committee to support withdrawal of RM-11708 in favor of a bandwidth
based approach to future allocation:

> The issue is that RM-11708 is too narrowly focused - a transparent
> attempt to shoe-horn PACTOR 4 into the current rules - rather than a
> good faith effort to deal with *all* the issues raised by increasing
> use of digital modes in amateur radio.
>
> ARRL and amateur radio as a whole would be much better served by a
> "big tent" approach - one that would look at digital techniques as a
> whole. The most simple - and by far most effective - approach would
> be to simplymodify 97.305(a) to read:
 >
>> (a) Except as specified elsewhere in this part, an amateur station
>> may transmit a CW, RTTY or data emission on any frequency authorized
>> to the control operator.
>
> That one simple change would instantly avoid any issue of bandwidth
> or symbol rate for "RTTY and data" modes operating in the so called
> "Phone" bands (actually, wideband sub-bands).
>
> With one minor change, we could be discussing issues of much more
> fundamental importance to the future of amateur radio:
>
>   1) what is the appropriate bandwidth in the narrow bandwidth sub-
>      bands - is 2.4 KHz appropriate if PACTOR 3 can be accommodated
>      in the wide band sub-bands?  Would 300 Hz, 500 Hz or some other
>      value be more appropriate?
>   2) what is the appropriate level of disclosure that should be
>      required for "documented" codes (data encoding) - should
 >      proprietary and quasi encrypted codes be permitted at all below
>      200 MHz, below 144 MHz, below 50 MHz?
>   3) should "documentation" require full disclosure of all encoding,
>      compression and software algorithms plus release of functional,
 >      real time,"receive only" software for each of the major
 >      PC operating systems?
 >   4) does the current non-specific wording of 97.307(f)(2) referring
 >      to the "bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission"
 >      need to be replaced with a specific value - say 2.8 KHz -
 >      except for ISB (independent sideband) and AM which would be
 >      grandfathered at 5.5 or 6 KHz?
 >   5) is it appropriate for automatically controlled stations to
 >      be required to have and use an effective "channel busy"
 >      detector?  Should the operator of any station using a digital
 >      mode where the "raw" (speaker) audio is not monitored in real
 >      time be required to have, and use, a "waterfall" or "audio
 >      spectrum" display in order to "see"/avoid other users on the
 >      frequency?  If such visual monitoring is not present, should
 >      the control operator required to employ an effective "channel
 >      busy" detector?
>
> ARRL could take the lead in preparing amateur radio for the 21st
> century and beyond with just a little bit of "out of the box"
> thinking.
 >
> In addition, a properly structured proposal should be a win-win-win.
> Winlink users get their PACTOR 4 (although on different frequencies
> than current operations), CW, RTTY and other narrow band mode users
> get relief from the unrestricted automatic (and semi-automatic) RMS
> interference, phone operators avoid the threat from 6 KHz wide HF
> D-Star and gain a clear path to digital voice modes, while amateur
> radio in general now has a clear path for development of mixed,
> "phone + data", "image + data", "phone + image + data" modes.
>
> The Executive Committee needs to withdraw RM-11708 and replace it with a
> broadly based blueprint for the future.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 5/3/2014 1:46 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> I agree with Joe's assessment. I think the League has screwed up on this
> thing.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> On 5/3/2014 6:44 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>> The only thing RM-11708 accomplishes is allow PACTOR 4 - a commercial
>> protocol for internet and e-mail access that operates at 1800 baud
>> in a 2.4 KHz bandwidth - in the bands traditionally protected from
>> interference by wideband transmissions.  PACTOR 4 has a crest factor
>> (peak to average ratio) of less that 4 dB; that is 2 dB less than
>> PACTOR 3 which is already a significant source of interference it
>> the upper portions of the "CW and RTTY bands".
>>
>> In addition, RM-11708 opens the door to STANAG, MS-110 and other
>> 2400/3600 baud 2.8 KHz wide protocols.  A single station using any
>> one of these protocols (PACTOR 4, STANAG, MS-110, etc.) can wipe
>> out the entire JT65 or JT9 "watering hole" - and most of*both*
>> on a given band.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> wsjtgroup-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> WSJTGroup Homepage --> http://www.wsjtgroup.org/
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsjtgroup/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
>      Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
>      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsjtgroup/join
>      (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
>      wsjtgroup-digest at yahoogroups.com
>      wsjtgroup-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>      wsjtgroup-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
>      https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
>
>