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

[Matthew Pitts]

Michael,

What I'm seeing from some opponents seems to be along the lines of "this rulemaking proposal will eliminate the 97.221 sub-bands and P4/other wideband digital will run roughshod over the existing users" whether that is their intent or not. Yes, there currently is interference with narrow bandwidth users, but this has been going on for as long as I've been a ham, and it seems neither side is as innocent in this as some claim. Yes, MT63-1000 and -2000 are legal below the ACDS wideband segment, but so is Pactor 3 and WinMOR 1600 as long as it is peer to peer.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU 

On August 17, 2016 10:01:13 AM EDT, Michael Adams <mda at n1en.org> wrote:
>I think that part of the discrepancy of opinion when it comes to the
>pros and cons of the NPRM is a difference in outlooks.
>
>Setting aside the not-insignificant problem of Winlink operators
>carelessly keying without listening for non-Winmor/Pactor signals and
>how that muddies up the question of the efficacy of LBT logic on the
>automated stations' side, I see the problem of having neither symbol
>rate nor bandwidth limitations as primarily a long-term one.
>
>Today, most of the demand for wideband text transmissions (remember
>that images are restricted to the phone/image subbands) is in automated
>usage.  It doesn't make sense to go wider today given that
>non-automated signals are primarily keyboard-to-keyboard
>communications.  If there were demand for a lot of non-automated text
>file transmissions today, we'd see a lot more MT63-1000 and -2000 on
>the bands; they're legal all the way down to the bottom of the bands,
>and I don't recall seeing complaints suggesting that there is a problem
>with such transmissions.
>
>My predictions follow.  Please read through before shooting me.  :)
>
>Assume the NPRM is incorporated into Part 97 as-is.  I believe that in
>the short term, the problem of Pactor vs RTTY interference will be
>reduced.  Winlinkians start using P4, and the total on-air time of
>their traffic will decline, assuming no additional traffic.
>
>However, it's probably unreasonable to assume that traffic levels will
>remain the same. In the mid-term, there's a decent chance that the
>increased capabilities introduced by the legalization of P4 in the US
>will increase demand for that system, potentially returning us to the
>current status quo or a little worse if/when traffic increases. Worse
>than the status quo would be extremely unfortunate on 30m and 80m in
>particular.
>
>Note, however, that all these changes are occurring within the
>automated subbands. In the short-to-mid term, it's hard for me to
>imagine that there will suddenly materialize some demand for a lot of
>non-automated wideband data transmissions (keeping in mind, again, that
>image is not allowed in the CW/data sides of the band).  RM-11708 will
>not yield immediate Armageddon.
>
>Armageddon is a potential long-term outcome.  Today most text
>transmissions on the band consist of either keyboard-to-keyboard
>communications (and I'm including the JT modes in that category, for
>simplicity) or automated communications like Winlink...I don't know
>what the future holds.  Given that part of the FCC's thinking is to
>facilitate experimentation and allow for future developments, it seems
>not unreasonable to wonder if there will be some future development
>that gives amateurs a reason to make non-automated wideband text
>transmissions.  I don't know what that development will be...but a lot
>can happen over 1, 2, 3 or more decades.
>
>If there is ever such a development, there will likely be a problem for
>narrowband users outside the automated subbands....and I think that
>possibility is enough to justify to the FCC that a bandwidth limit be
>imposed on part of the CW/data dubbands.  In my comments to the FCC, I
>suggested 500Hz below the automated frequencies...but your mileage may
>vary.