[RTTY] RM-11708

Sat May 3 20:34:56 EDT 2014

Joe one thing missing from your suggestion is 97.221(c). Eliminate that
and the automatic/semi-automatic stations would have to learn to share
and spread vertically. The IARU Region 2 band plan even specifies areas
for all automatically controlled data stations and requests that unattended
activity be limited.

Ron
K0IDT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
To: <k9yc at arrl.net>; "WSJT Group" <wsjtgroup at yahoogroups.com>; "RTTY" <rtty at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708

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