[RTTY] If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence

Mon Aug 8 08:27:25 EDT 2016

On 8/8/2016 7:27 AM, Jeff AC0C wrote:
> Huh? Spend any time up above 14.090 and you can pretty quickly
> realize the supposed "prevent interference" aspect is completely
> absent with those stations starting up on your QRG pretty often.

You don't have to restrict yourself to above 14.090 ... it's common
on 40, 30 and 17 meters as well (probably 80 meters but I don't spend
a lot of time listening there).

§97.221 does not apply to non-US stations or the US WinLink lids who
set up remote stations off-shore and the scanning systems will answer
anyone, anywhere without regard to existing activity.

Again, the solution is to impose a 400 Hz bandwidth limit is the
portions of the amateur bands currently reserved for RTTY/DATA
(including 30meters) and a 2.7 KHz limit with a specific 6 KHz
exemption for traditional double sideband AM on the rest of the
amateur bands below 29.5 MHz.

400 Hz preserves the status quo in the RTTY/DATA bands and 2.7 KHz
is overdue in the rest of the HF allocations.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV

On 8/8/2016 7:27 AM, Jeff AC0C wrote:
> Huh?  Spend any time up above 14.090 and you can pretty quickly realize
> the supposed "prevent interference" aspect is completely absent with
> those stations starting up on your QRG pretty often.  And in the case of
> pactor, that system just crushes a RTTY or CW underlying signal.
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> www.ac0c.com
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Pitts via RTTY
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 7:19 PM
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence
>
> A fine example of FUD, since neither the ARRL or FCC are changing 97.221
> in any way, nor is it likely that any significant increase in
> interference will result with "new" technologies already having a means
> to prevent interference as part of their design.
>
> Matthew Pitts
> N8OHU
>
> On August 7, 2016 8:14:31 PM EDT, Jim McDonald <jim at n7us.net> wrote:
>> From the SMC reflector.
>>
>> 73, Jim N7US
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: SMC [mailto:smc-bounces at w9smc.com] On Behalf Of Mike Wetzel
>> Sent: August 07, 2016 18:38
>> To: smc at w9smc.com
>> Subject: [SMC] if you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence
>>
>> From Dr. Ted Rappaport N9NB
>>
>> Dear Colleagues:
>>
>> If you believe, as I do, that the proposal to unregulate the bandwidth
>> of
>> data signals (like Pactor 4) in the lower HF portion of the spectrum is
>> dangerous for the hobby, both in the US and abroad,  then please read
>> on as
>> we need your help. If you do not agree with me, or don't care about
>> this,
>> then feel free to delete and stop reading.
>>
>> I ask that you PLEASE take action by filling public comments with the
>> FCC
>> regarding their recent RM 11708 proposed rulemaking in WT Docket No.
>> 16-239
>> and RM-11708, and please forward this to every CW and RTTY enthusiast
>> you
>> know in ham radio, on every reflector, in every CW and RTTY club, both
>> in
>> the US and elsewhere, and urge them to also file comments with the FCC.
>> We
>> have less than 3 weeks to voice our opinion! It was not heard in
>> 2014-2015.
>>
>> TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE! There are less than 3 weeks during which the
>> FCC
>> will accept comments.
>>
>> I am  fearful and quite certain that RM 11708, as published in WT
>> Docket No.
>> 16-239 , which the FCC is now seeking public comment on as a prelude to
>> enact its ruling, will terribly erode CW and RTTY on the HF bands in
>> its
>> current form. The ruling will allow PACTOR 4 and multi-tone modems on
>> any
>> frequency within the CW/RTTY frequencies on HF. This is worse than
>> allowing
>> SSB to operate throughout the CW/data sub bands, something the FCC has
>> never
>> allowed. The FCC is proposing an unlimited bandwidth for data signals
>> in the
>> lower HF bands (the ARRL asked for 2.8 kHz-- the bandwidth of SSB---
>> which
>> was still bad - and the FCC proposal is even worse). I would urge all
>> of you
>> write in to object to RM 11708 and to ask that the FCC place a 500 Hz
>> bandwidth limit all data transmission bandwidths such as Pactor, multi
>> tone
>> data modems, and other experimental data modes on all HF bands within
>> the
>> lowest 75 or 100 kHz region of each HF band. Japan has something
>> similar. If
>> we don't generate large support from hams to scale back the FCC
>> proposal,
>> and put a bandwidth cap in some portion of the lower HF bands, these
>> monster
>> QRMers of unlimited bandwidth will be allowed to operate anywhere in
>> the
>> CW/RTTY lower HF bands, and they will lawfully fire up on your CW or
>> RTTY QS
>> when you are least expecting it.
>>
>> See below how the proponents of RM 11708, including my friend Tom
>> Whiteside,
>> are launching an aggressive letter-writing campaign for "pro" comments
>> to be
>> filed at the FCC to allow Pactor 4 and other wideband multi-tone modems
>> to
>> operate anywhere in the CW/RTTY spectrum, without a segregation of the
>> band.
>>
>> The public filing period ends in a few weeks, so we must write now to
>> offer
>> opposition to the Commission. The need for WinLink/Pactor data
>> emergency
>> communication on HF is being used as one of the arguments for expanding
>> the
>> data bandwidth. See the other arguments below.  I would urge CW and
>> RTTY
>> enthusiasts to review the arguments for and against RM 11708, see the
>> public
>> comments filed from March 2014 to today, and please be moved to
>> quickly to
>> write about your opposition to the newly proposed regulation just
>> released
>> by the FCC (It can be viewed here):
>> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0728/FCC-16-9
>>
>> 6A1.pdf
>>
>> Please see Tom's email below on how to file a comment, but I would urge
>> you
>> to read the FCC proposal and file comments *against* the FCC's proposed
>> rulemaking. You can see the ballet box is again be flooded for the
>> expanded
>> data privileges in the past week - there are only 20 days to file
>> comments.
>>
>> If this ruling is enacted, and the FCC is leaning that way, this will
>> come
>> at a cost to CW and RTTY . See these comments already filed:
>> https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?sort=date_disseminated,DESC&proceedi
>>
>> ngs_name=RM-11708
>>
>> Unfortunately, in the FCC proposed ruling issued over a week ago, the
>> Commission appears to have ignored ALL comments made by hams after the
>> initial 30 day comment period back in late 2013. During that one month
>> period, there was a 95% "pro" letter writing campaign by over 800
>> people --
>> It was only after the CW and RTTY enthusiasts woke up in March of 2014
>> that
>> public comments became overwhelmingly negative against RM 11708.
>> Unfortunately, the FCC has apparently ignored all of those comments, so
>> new
>> comments need to be filed on the FCC;s recent ruling.
>>
>> If you care about CW and RTTY, please file comments against the ruling,
>> to
>> preserve some sanctuary for narrowband data (having less than 500 Hz
>> bandwidth), the way the largest ham country  (Japan) has done to ensure
>> no
>> QRM to CW and RTTY enthusiasts.
>>
>> Thanks for considering.
>> Best 73 ted n9nb
>>
>>
>>
>> Winlink Global Radio Email for Disasters or Emergency Preparedness
>> communications. Group
>> 1 Message
>> Digest #4406
>> 1
>> Comments on RM-11708 - time to get those comments in! by "Tom
>> Whiteside"
>> n5tw
>> Message
>> 1
>> Comments on RM-11708 - time to get those comments in!
>> Fri Aug 5, 2016 2:36 am (PDT) . Posted by:
>> "Tom Whiteside" n5tw
>> As you have heard on this reflector, the FCC has amended the ARRL filed
>> RM-11708 and is now seeking comments on this. It is critical that we
>> add our
>> supporting comments during this period and the process below is a step
>> by
>> step on how to do so.
>>
>> I'd suggest something simple - please make it clear that you support
>> the
>> amended proposal - these responses are going to be tallied at least at
>> the
>> first level by clerks so be clear! In my filing, I emphasized the clear
>> gain
>> in efficiency with the elimination of the archaic symbol rate and sited
>> currently not legal Pactor 4's ability to double the throughput in the
>> same
>> bandwidth as Pactor 3 and that this would bring us on par with the rest
>> of
>> the world.
>>
>> Use your own words - form letters will be seen as such.
>>
>> And thanks for your important support! Instructions on filing below:
>>
>> Tom Whiteside N5TW
>>
>> =====================
>>
>> IMPORTANT MESSAGE: Time is running out for comments supporting RM-11708
>> to
>> the FCC, which would remove the symbol rate limitation from FCC rules,
>> and
>> allow hams to use Pactor 4 modems in the USA. If the proposed rule
>> change
>> fails this time, it will be years before we have another chance.
>>
>> It is very easy to submit a comment. Please do. You don't have to say
>> much
>> other than you think it's a good idea, and that you support it.
>>
>> Here are the steps to submit a comment.
>>
>> 1. Go to <http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/
>>
>> 2. Select "Submit a Filing (Express)" from the list in the upper left
>> corner
>> of the screen.
>>
>> 3. In the topmost paragraph of the next screen, click "click here to
>> manually enter your docket number"
>> .
>>
>> 4. Enter RM-11708 as the "Proceeding Number". Enter your name, address,
>> and
>> type your comments in the bottom field.
>>
>> 5. Click "Continue";, and then click the "Confirm" button on the
>> summary
>> page it will display.
>>
>> 6. If everything goes properly, it will give you a submission
>> confirmation
>> number.
>>
>> Here are the relevant points:
>>
>> a. The proposed change does not alter the bandwidth limits or the
>> frequencies available for digital use, so no new frequency space is
>> being
>> used. It has no negative impact on the Ham spectrum.
>>
>> 2. The use of Pactor 4 simply makes the use of existing bandwidth more
>> efficient, so additional traffic can be passed without allocating new
>> frequencies.
>>
>> 3. The further development of even faster protocols in the same
>> bandwidth
>> limitations depends on the success of this rulemaking
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>