In messaging systems like WinLink, users activate an unattended server. For
this to work, users must know on what frequencies to
call.
See, for example,
<http://www.qsl.net/ve3lki/RMS/index.html>
Being Canadian, this station is not subject to 97.221; some of the frequencies
it advertises are outside the "automatic control"
segments defined in 97.221.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:lists@subich.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:28 AM
To: Dave AA6YQ
Cc: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
On 11/23/2013 8:58 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
> Your message is the first I've heard of automatically controlled stations
> ignoring the 500 hz bandwidth limitation within the
> sub-bands specified by 97.221.
It's not just in the sub-bands defined by 97.221 ... it's where ever
the auto-responding systems are called.
> Is this anecdotal, or is there hard evidence of this behavior?
Well, it's a little difficult to have callsigns and times since the
PACTOR protocol is proprietary, SCS refuses to publish it, and it
is impossible to decode without spending $2000 for one of SCS's
hardware modems. However, he sudden appearance of the "burping,"
wide, noise like signal on top of narrow bandwidth QSOs is a good
indication of this behavior.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:lists@subich.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:50 PM
> To: Dave AA6YQ
> Cc: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
>
>
> > How is it different than an automatically controlled station as
> > described in 97.221?
>
> A "scanning auto-responder" is a station described by 97.221 (c)(1).
>
> However, operators of such systems claim they are not automatically
> controlled (they are "controlled" by the interrogating station) and
> thus not subject to 97.221 - including the bandwidth limitation.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 11/23/2013 8:21 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>> What's a "scanning auto-responder"? How is it different than an
>> automatically controlled station as described in 97.221?
>>
>> <http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=136>
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Dave, AA6YQ
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
>> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:07 PM
>> To: rtty@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
>>
>>
>> > Has anyone reached a different conclusion?
>>
>> The scanning "auto-responders" are not considered to be automatically
>> controlled. That one reason they can pop-up anywhere "RTTY, data"
>> emissions are authorized. The 500 Hz bandwidth does not apply to
>> them - and is routinely ignores by "automatically controlled" stations
>> in the "automatic control" sub-bands.
>>
>> ARRL's assertion that "there is no proposal herein to change" rings
>> hollow because most of the PACTOR systems are not technically operated
>> under the "automatic control" rules.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>> On 11/23/2013 7:45 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>>> Section II.8 of
>>>
>>> <http://www.arrl.org/files/media/News/Petition%20for%20Rule%20Making%20AS-FILED%2011%2015%202013.pdf>
>>>
>>> restates the 500 hertz bandwidth limit on automatically controlled stations
>>> operating in the HF subbands specified by 97.221.
>>> Footnote 11 says "there is no proposal herein to change the nominal
>>> bandwidth limitation for automatically controlled stations
>>> transmitting data emissions".
>>>
>>> Thus the ARRL's proposal would if adopted not result in any expansion in
>>> either the bandwidth or HF spectrum available to
>>> automatically controlled stations.
>>>
>>> Has anyone reached a different conclusion?
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Dave, AA6YQ
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kai
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 6:21 PM
>>> To: rtty@contesting.com
>>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
>>>
>>> John,
>>> The appropriate course of action now would be to file comments about the
>>> ARRL
>>> proposal (and just the proposal).
>>> One approach may be, a step by step effort to defeat any BW greater than
>>> 2,200 Hz::
>>> (1) To keep the status quo, the BW should be 2,200 Hz. That excludes no
>>> one,
>>> adds no one, and keeps all current modes as before; allows for future
>>> innovation
>>> and experimentation.
>>> (2) That means 2800 is clearly outside the mainstream -- we must
>>> demonstrate now
>>> that 2800 would injure current users without any real benefits.
>>> [this is reasonable in view of the ARRL proposal, and stands a chance of
>>> prevailing]
>>>
>>> if you want to go further, and alternative argument is:
>>>
>>> (3) Current RTTY limit (up to 300 B, and 1 kHz T sep) requires just 1,500
>>> Hz.
>>> That satisfies everything including PACTOR-III-SL1.
>>> Perhaps that's a rock bottom figure because it results in small reductions
>>> in
>>> current amateur privileges, maybe not so bad except for the
>>> PACTOR-III modes SL2-6. Then follow up with (2) again, that 2800 Hz will
>>> cause
>>> harm.
>>> [this one we think is reasonable, but it injures other current users, so
>>> less
>>> chance of prevailing]
>>>
>>> So I can see a clear case for 2,200 Hz, and a good case for 1,500 Hz. But
>>> I can
>>> not see a viable case for much below 1,500 Hz.
>>> The another important thrust would be to demonstrate that anything greater
>>> than
>>> 2200 Hz belongs up there with image emissions and in the 60 m band channels
>>> (where 2800 is already legal) because it is incompatible with amateur usage
>>> and
>>> practice in the CW/digi frequencies.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Kai, KE4PT
>>>
>>> On 11/23/2013 5:09 PM, John Grimm wrote:
>>>> I am in the process of drafting my comments. Like Jim, I would appreciate
>>>> even a bullet list of topics/issues which are deemed
>>> important to include in those comments. This would be very helpful to me
>>> as I've never filed comments before.
>>>>
>>>> John / K0YQ
>>>>
>>>> Message: 3
>>>> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 13:36:05 -0600
>>>> From: "Jim N7US"<jim@n7us.net>
>>>> To:<rtty@contesting.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
>>>> Message-ID:<025601cee883$4168a560$c439f020$@net>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>>>
>>>> Would it be productive if a committee of "The Knowledgeable" got together
>>>> to
>>>> draft an effective, succinct email to the ARRL directors that includes the
>>>> key problems with the proposal? Each of us could either copy and paste it
>>>> in an email to our respective directors or modify/personalize it before
>>>> doing so. It should include the impact on all modes and activities, not
>>>> only RTTY.
>>>>
>>>> I understand it's already gone to the FCC, so responding to that is a
>>>> separate undertaking, and Don just created a web page on how to do that. I
>>>> would think that the key points in the ARRL director email would probably
>>>> be
>>>> the same ones to include in an FCC filing.
>>>>
>>>> 73, Jim N7US
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RTTY mailing list
>>>> RTTY@contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>
>>> -----
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3629/6360 - Release Date: 11/23/13
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3629/6361 - Release Date: 11/23/13
>>
>>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3629/6361 - Release Date: 11/23/13
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3629/6361 - Release Date: 11/23/13
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|