[SEDXC] [DFWcontest] Please forward this far and wide, its important if you care about CW and RTTY

Fri May 2 11:32:52 EDT 2014

> The new proposed rule will allow us to experiment with some exciting
> new modulation modes and keep amateur radio a leader in the
> progression of  radio communications.

That's ARRL propaganda and completely untrue.  The only thing is will
permit is a *commercial* protocol (PACTOR 4) with a significantly
stronger interference profile.  This move would further codify the
separation of modes based on content rather than basing allocations
on modulation characteristics (bandwidth).

The *real* issue is 1) 2.8 KHz bandwidth and 2) symbol rates greater
than 300 baud.

RTTY, PSK31, JT65/JT9 *already* have a problem with 200 baud 2.4 KHz
wide PACTOR 3 signals wiping out five or six 300 Hz wide (RTTY) or
less signals.  If the bandwidth is increased to 2.8 KHz and the baud
limit removed that problem *will become an issue for CW* as the PSK31,
RTTY and JT mode signals *move down the band* to escape.

PACTOR 3 at its widest mode has a crest factor (peak to average ratio)
of 5.7 dB.  PACTOR 4 with its *1800 baud* modulation has a crest factor
of less than 4 dB - that means PACTOR 4 is 2dB *stronger* than the
typical PACTOR 3 QRM today.  Other 2.8 KHz digital modes with higher
baud rates *have even lower crest factors* - N9NB can probably give us
a theoretical number but I would guess for a 2400 or 3200 baud STANAG
modulation the crest factor might be sub 3 dB or *double the strength*
of the already crippling PACTOR 3 crap.

*THERE IS NO NEED* for higher data rates in amateur service - ham radio
is not an alternative to commercial internet access.  There is no need
to remove the current symbol rate limitation even if ARRL feels it is
necessary to add a bandwidth limitation for data modes to protect from
some hypothetical multi-tone modulation of the future.

Wideband data belongs with other wideband (voice, image, etc.) modes.
If wideband techniques are to be used, update the rules to allocate
based on necessary/occupied bandwidth, not emission type of the content
of the modulation.  Take that step and the rules instantly become ready
for the future *and* permit amateur experimentation in mixed content
(digital voice with text/control/signalling) that are currently not
permitted because data (telemetry) is restricted to one area of the
spectrum and voice is restricted to another.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV

On 5/2/2014 10:06 AM, Dan Bates wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I have disagree with these arguments.  Only the US is stuck
> with this archaic baud rate rule.
>
>
>
> The other thing I must laugh about is cw advocates embracing the RTTY
> community.  RTTY is every bit as wide and annoying to a cw station as any
> proposed 2.8KHz digital signal.  The reason RTTY falls under the 300 baud
> limit is that it is so inefficient in use of bandwidth.
>
>
>
> Amateur radio has always been on the forefront of technology and a leader in
> exploring new techniques and propagation modes.  To try and limit the HF
> bands 300 baud is similar to trying to maintain spark gap.
>
>
>
> The new proposed rule will allow us to experiment with some exciting new
> modulation modes and keep amateur radio a leader in the progression of radio
> communications.
>
>
>
> Oh, by the way, I'm a CW Ops member and run a CW class every week.
>
>
>
> Dan n5tm
>
>
>
> From: Terry [mailto:ab5k at hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 7:31 AM
> To: ctdxcc at kkn.net; DFWcontest at yahoogroups.com; rtty at contesting.com
> Cc: 'Ted Rappaport'; 'Dan White'; 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'Hal Kennedy'
> Subject: [DFWcontest] Please forward this far and wide, its important if you
> care about CW and RTTY
>
>
>
>
>
> CTDXCC, RTTY reflector and DFW Contesters,
>
> Many of us know Ted, N9NB, and his contributions to amateur and the
> engineering world. For those who may now know Ted, here is a link to a
> page on the ARRL site where you can get a feel for Ted's credentials.
> Here is a quote off the ARRL site: "Ted Rappaport is one of the most
> renowned professors in communications engineering and is widely known from
> his textbooks, research centers and products,".
> <http://www.arrl.org/news/ted-rappaport-n9nb-named-recipient-of-ieee-educati
> <http://www.arrl.org/news/ted-rappaport-n9nb-named-recipient-of-ieee-educati
> %0bon-award>
> on-award>
>
> Ted is right on target and RM-11708 needs to be STOPPED! The ARRL is WRONG
> and ramming this thru the FCC without any input from low bandwidth CW and
> Data users. If you have not filled a FCC comment please do so. There is
> still a short time left.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Terry AB5K
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CTDXCC [mailto:ctdxcc-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of Ted Rappaport
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 9:30 PM
> To: CTDXCC
> Subject: Re: [CTDXCC] CTDXCC Digest, Vol 136, Issue
>
> Please forward this far and wide, its important if you care about CW.
>
> I hope all who care about the future of CW and RTTY will file thoughtful,
> rationale comments AGAINST RM 11708. We desperately need more AGAINST
> comments to overturn this dreadful proposed rulemaking!
>
> It takes only a couple of minutes, and here are clear instructions how to do
> it:
>
> http://64.128.19.154/RM11708.pdf
>
> In making this flawed rule making, the ARRL is essentially declaring war on
> all CW and RTTY users of the HF bands, and it is as if they filed a law suit
> against incumbent hams in that spectrum at the FCC.
>
> This is a pure and simple spectrum grab at the expense of CW and RTTY hams.
>
> First, the ARRL did not seek broad approval, this is a back room dealing and
> a rule making that attepts to strip a decades-old protection on
> human-to-human protection of CW and RTTY/PSK31 users. 300 baud is ESSENTIAL
> to keeping a bandwidth containment on all low band users. The RM 11708
> attempts to STRIP this vital protection, and make the baud rate UNLIMITED.
> Then, they proposed to widen the bandwidth for any data signal to 2.8 kHz,
> wider than today's SSB Signals! Today's CW and RTTY signals are no more than
> a few hundred HZ wide......now the ARRL wants to fill the lower HF bands
> with data users that are 2.8 kHz wide!
>
> If we don't speak out against this, at once, we are in jeopardy of losing
> our FCC-protected status, as the 300 baud limit protects narrowband users,
> like CW and RTTY operators, from harmful interference! And the low bands
> will be populated with machine-to-machine automated stations that do not
> properly identify themselves or listen bvefore transmiting! Ham radio as we
> love it and know it will be gone! WE MUST SPEAK OUT!
>
> Please spread the word- we MUST get hundreds of more AGAINST comments at the
> FCC if we want to stop this thing and enjoy CW in our retirement years! I
> have done the analysis, I have tried talking logic to the league. I have
> done much expert witnessing in my career on spectrum.
>
> THIS IS A PURE AND SIMPLE SPECTRUM GRAB BY THE ARRL AND WE MUST SPEAK OUT
> AGAINST THE ARRL AND AGAINST RM 11708 IF WE CARE ABOUT USING CW AND RTTY!
>
> Please spread the word, we must get public comments on file. This is not the
> time to sit back and do nothing! Educate yourself- See that the ARRL has put
> up a red herring, where they 'make up" some bogeyman wideband signal that
> could not exist practically, only to strip away the 300 baud limit that
> protects the narrowband CW and RTTY users.
>
> Please speak out, we must save our hobby if we care about enjoying the human
> to human modes of CW and RTTY.
>
> Ted
>
> __._,_.___
>
>
>
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/conversations/messages/4537;
> _ylc=X3oDMTJxcms0bjdwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA
> 2MzEwOARtc2dJZAM0NTM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTAzNDkxMA--?act=re
> ply&messageNum=4537> Reply via web post
>
> .
>
>
> <mailto:george.perkins at gmail.com?subject=Re%3A%20Please%20forward%20this%20f
> ar%20and%20wide%2C%20its%20important%20if%20you%20care%20about%20CW%20%20and
> %20RTTY> Reply to sender
>
> .
>
>
> <mailto:DFWcontest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Please%20forward%20this%2
> 0far%20and%20wide%2C%20its%20important%20if%20you%20care%20about%20CW%20%20a
> nd%20RTTY> Reply to group
>
> .
>
>
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=
> X3oDMTJmOTMzdWwzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEw
> OARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzOTkwMzQ5MTA-> Start a New Topic
>
> .
>
>
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/conversations/topics/4537;_y
> lc=X3oDMTM1dnRvY28zBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2M
> zEwOARtc2dJZAM0NTM3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTAzNDkxMAR0cGNJZAM0N
> TM3> Messages in this topic (1)
>
>    _____
>
>
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DFWcontest/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMjdzbHBrBF
> 9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEwOARzZWMDdnRsBHNsaw
> N2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzOTkwMzQ5MTA-> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNTZ0ODU5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkA
> zc2MTA5Mzg2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEwOARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTAzN
> DkxMA-->
>
> .  <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> Privacy .
> <mailto:DFWcontest-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> Unsubscribe .  <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> Terms of
> Use
>
> .
>
>
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=76109386/grpspId=1705063108/msgI
> d=4537/stime=1399034910>
>
> <http://y.analytics.yahoo.com/fpc.pl?ywarid=515FB27823A7407E&a=1000131032227
> 9&js=no&resp=img>
>
> __,_._,___
>
>