[RTTY] ARRL Request for Member comment on Proposed HF Band PlanChange

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

The issue is that ARRL is not willing to ask the FCC to move
the "automatic control subbands) out of the heavily used RTTY
(and PSK, JT-mode, etc.) sub-bands and eliminate them completely
on the excessively narrow "WARC bands".  That is what is needed
- along with mandating "channel busy detectors" for ACDS and
restricting *all* ACDS to the automatic control frequencies.

Until ARRL are willing to attack the licensed automatic QRM
generators the same way they attacked Mitre, ARRL Management
and the ARRL Board of Directors are just a bunch of hypocrites.

So far CW has been generally protected from automatic and wide-
band digital modes but if ARRL insists on their one-sided band-
plan and continues to push wide bandwidth data modes, I predict
the RTTY, PSK and JT operators will push back and move "down"
in frequency setting up some serious confrontations with CW.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2015-03-01 9:33 PM, Jeff AC0C wrote:
> The problem is that the League is saying they want input - and
> presumably will respect the input received.
>
> But so far, their actions have been to move forward with their
> pro-email-via-HF position - regardless of the impact.  This band plan
> change gives the email over HF a full measure, extracted primarily from
> the digital mode space.
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> www.ac0c.com
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Charles Morrison
> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 7:21 PM
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL Request for Member comment on Proposed HF Band
> PlanChange
>
>> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:54:19 -0600
>> From: Peter Laws <plaws0 at gmail.com>
>> To: RTTY contest group <rtty at contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL Request for Member comment on Proposed HF
>> Band Plan Change
>> Message-ID:
>> <CANVAiQ-HLTtTx-
>> pm_EsoZXWvqhvf+WbcDg_hauNfgqkonzwUzQ at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Ron Kolarik <rkolarik at neb.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Fluorescent yellow vests, wacker lights and DHS grants would be a
>> fair
>> > guess and ARRL wants to hold the control strings.
>> >
>>
>>
>> The "emergency communications" angle, eh?  Hadn't thought of that
>> because I assumed it was boat owners too cheap to use a commercial
>> service (as per 97.113(a)(5)).  Hmm.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
>
> This month's QST Forward from K1ZZ and the pending request for comments for
> the ARRL's proposal for movement got a few friends of mine thinking.  This
> is one position from a fellow ham in Mississippi and his thoughts on the
> proposal and how it will fit right into 11708.  I'm passing this along to
> the RTTY group and will be forwarding to some fellow CWOps leaders as well
> as their email list should it be allowed.
>
>> From KY5U:
>
> Reviewing the ARRL committee recommendations, we see the following:
>
> 1. HF Automatically Controlled Digital Stations are referred to by the
> acronym ACDS in most of the report fostering obfuscation. The only ACDS
> traffic on Amateur Radio is Winlink with email service for sailboats and
> RVs
> mostly. FCC rules mandate AR should not be used to replace paid services,
> and paid services are available to deliver email over HF.
>
> 2. The main thrust of the proposal is to segregate Winlink (ACDS) traffic
> from RTTY and Digital modes.
>
> 3. Segregation of modes results in a loss of spectrum for RTTY and data
> mode
> use.
>
> 4. On 80M, Winlink segregation results in loss of Phone spectrum of 50kHz.
> 15kHz of that spectrum would go to Winlink ACDS between 3600 and
> 3615kHz. It
> is unclear why the proposal asks for 50kHz when the Winlink segment only
> uses 15kHz of that. It seems clear that even with the Winlink segregated
> space, the maximum reduction to the phone band should be a maximum of
> 20kHz,
> not 50kHz.
>
> 5. Segregation includes 30, 17, and 12M which results in the loss of 5kHz
> for RTTY and data modes.
>
> 6. Loss of spectrum by segregation results in a loss of 5kHz for RTTY and
> data modes on 20M and the loss of 7kHz of spectrum on 20M.
>
>
> The plan as recommended is nothing more than a Winlink land grab. It is
> wrong because RTTY and Data modes lose spectrum on all bands except 80M. On
> 80M, the land grab steals from Phone spectrum. With the proposal on 80M,
> the
> stated purpose of helping the reduced CW/RTTY/Data spectrum is not achieved
> as these modes gain nothing but the benefit of being rid of automatic
> stations for Winlink. Also, by following the recommended plan, 50kHz taken
> from phone is not necessary. At maximum 20kHz is needed to accomplish the
> plan and given Winlink Pactor modems use 2.8kHz, the reduction in phone
> spectrum should be 5kHz at most.
>
> Finally, Pactor modems in latest form use 2.8kHz bandwidth. The minimum
> bandwidth gained by Winlink ACDS is 5kHz. This seems to leave the door open
> for future modems to use in access of 3kHz without further FCC approval.
> Are
> they suggesting Winlink needs 2ea. 1kHz guard bands? 2kHz lost to this?
>
> While (except for 80M) these are recommended changes to a voluntary band
> plan, I suggest RTTY, CW, and Narrowband Data modes don't volunteer.
> Amateur
> heritage is to try to honor the bandplan. It should not be changed or at
> the
> most, only 3kHz should be allotted for Winlink ACDS. For 80M, the requested
> 50kHz from the FCC is not needed. At best, only 20kHz is needed and given
> the Pactor signals are 2.8kHz, only 5kHz is REALLY needed. Amateurs should
> just say NO to Winlink.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>