Good ideas.
What we want do is to provide accurate data as to the usage of the various
modes of SSB, CW, RTTY and Packet.
So for the white paper that describes the popularity of modes across ham
radio, the following could be included.
DXing
The recent FT5ZM operation gives a accurate comparison of the popularity of
current amateur modes when used for DXing. Source:
https://secure.clublog.org/charts/?c=ft5zm#r
MODE SSB CW RTTY PACKET TOTAL
-------------------------------------------------------------
# QSO's 63008 95036 12063 0 170107
Percent 37% 56% 7% 0
Here is the previous post that lead to the idea on a white paper that lead
to the thought that showing the low number of packet operators would help
Directors and Vice Directors in determining who should I listen to, i.e.
who will get me re-elected next term. Here is the original post and
supporting evidence for the "less-than-1%" would make for a good white
paper.
de Skip KH6TY - Winlink wants YOUR frequencies! - Not satisfied with
dominating the 3.8% of the HF ham frequencies set aside by the FCC for
wideband unattended operations, Winlink, for the sole benefit of their
less-than-1% of the US hams, is now pressuring the ARRL to take away
frequencies used for contesting, Dxing, ragchewing, experimentation, and
award-chasing, and make those additional frequencies available for Winlink
to dominate with their unattended email robots.
I would love to send a email my director and vice director that says.
Dude, you are the one that initiated RM-11708. In the future, we will be
providing you with other white papers from experts in the field that detail
potential damage from RM-11708. You will also see a future white paper that
details the flawed design and deployment of automated packet robots as well
as their documented interference to current amateur operations. The
attached white paper details the fact that you are supporting "less-than-1%"
of amateurs that are currently QRMing the other 99% that operate using
traditional modes of SSB, CW and RTTY. If approved, RM-11708 allows for
even more interference by allowing them to operate at even wider bandwidths.
Please fix this!
Everyone on this list could send a simple one paragraph email with the
"less-than-1%" white paper. That's is followed by a similar email in a week
or so documenting the flawed packet robots and their QRM. Than a few weeks
later another round of emails with a white paper on potential effects of
RM-11708.
HQ ARRL folks will get similar emails. The ones to the president (chief
fund raiser) of the league will come from two Texas hams (and anyone else
that we can find) that are major donors to the ARRL. I received a email
from one ham that had planned to leave an endowment to the ARRL when he
becomes a SK. He is now looking at the NCDXF but I know he will send a
email to the president of the ARRL as he is concerned. Anyone who has any
contact at ARRL HQ needs to send them a email.
Get the idea.....
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kai
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 1:42 PM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Digital Operators Band Plan Committee - Current thoughts
and status
Terry,
One possible way to get figures on CW, Phone and RTTY usage is to look at
DXpedition statistics.
ClubLog list totals < https://secure.clublog.org/expeditions.php > but does
not break out by mode.
Maybe you can pick some likely candidates there and search other sources for
breakouts by mode.
They are available from some DXpeditions, for example, click on "statistics"
at,
http://www.clublog.org/charts/?c=FT5ZM#r
It's at least a traceable source, and the Digital stats would be almost
exclusively amateur-RTTY.
Another way is to look at the posted W1AW/n "details" at
https://centennial-qp.arrl.org/w1aw-portable-qsos.php
They report by principal mode, but they don't report what kind of "digital"
but I'll bet most were amateur-RTTY, although I've hear JT65 (EME and HF),
and PSK31 as well.
Finally, RTTY contest stats should reveal peak usage of the bands.
Some more observations:
RTTY operations can be simplex or split like in DXpeditions. That's two
different ways of using BW.
PSK31, JT9 and JT65, although narrow BW for any one signal, tend to decode a
2-4 kHz wide BW simultaneously, their natural operation then requires a 2 -
4 kHz bandwidth segment, (depending on the RX BW), but for multiple users.
Thus, PSK31 needs a BW from, say 14.070 to 14.074 (or so), servicing
multiple users simultaneously. Same with JT65 and JT9: example: 14.076 to
14.080 or so.
They don't tolerate high power signals very well because of the need to
"see"
multiple users in the BW.
That's one of the complications facing any band plan.
Good luck
Kai, KE4PT
On 3/17/2014 1:56 PM, Terry wrote:
> We are slowly getting organized. We have been flooded with personal
emails
> and phone calls and appreciate all of the comments and suggestions. We
> are certainly open for inputs and right now the feeling is we need to
> unite and attack this in two ways:
>
>
>
> 1. Provide inputs for the ARRL's Band Plan. The priority is inputs
> for the ARRL as that is under a time schedule and we have two weeks
> remaining
>
> 2. The other avenue is education. Here are the proposed pieces:
>
> a. Develop a white paper on both the engineering and deployment
flaws
> of Winlink and other automated digital packet robots. We have a two
> page draft but its need inputs from experts who can make it
> technically correct and polish it up.
>
> b. Develop a white paper on potential interference from RM-11708 and
> why it needs to be sandboxed into its own sub band. This needs
development
> from the ground up.
>
> c. Develop a short white paper documenting the percent of automated
> packet users versus legacy SSB, CW and RTTY modes. There was a post to
the
> reflector from a KH6 as I recall that had some numbers. That needs to
> be documented with supporting data and published.
>
> d. Develop a Power Point presentation along the lines of "Spectral
> Defense - Dangers from Within". There we talk about the bottom end of
40
> meters that's shared between CW, RTTY and SSB and talk about the
> interference to the FT5 DX-Expedition by unattended packet. Then follow
up
> a view of the spreadsheet shows the "mine field" of unattended packet
> stations that are there and just waiting to QRM you. Other slides would
> discuss the bending of the rules / legality, Spectrum grab, IARU
> concerns about automated robot spectrum grab, a slide from a Emergency
> Coordinator that rejected Winlink for his two Texas counties due to
> speed, and the request for 15% of the spectrum band.
>
> e. We also need a 5 minute u-tube video demonstrating Winlink showing
> that it takes 5 minutes of actual air time to transmit a simple one
> line message.
>
>
>
> After the education content is complete, we need help from everyone on
> this reflector to share the educational information with ARRL officials,
other
> reflectors, clubs and anyone who will listen. I have requested a slot
to
> do a presentation at the Central Texas DX and Contest Club and also
> plan do a presentation at the Temple Amateur Radio Club. I am
> scheduled for a 30 minute talk at HamComm hamfest in Dallas on N1MM
> Contesting Software and I'll certainly hijack a few minutes out of
> that talk to discuss the above content and concerns and how folks can
help.
>
>
>
> In the last few days, there has been daily calls with John Stratton - ARRL
> Vice Director West Gulf Division. The information is also being passed
to
> our Director. With the proper content we can start a education program
with
> all league officials expressing all of our concerns. We have good
data,
> we have the majority we just need to organize and get the word out.
>
>
>
> We need volunteers to help on the white papers. I have someone in mind
> that not only has superior technical skills but is also well respected
> both at ARRL HQ and across the world. I sure hope he volunteers.
>
>
>
> There are a few ideas that we consider nuclear options that are
> definitely off the table for now. There are other thoughts and ideas are
coming in
> that are very useful. Thanks for all of the inputs.
>
>
>
>
>
> Terry AB5K
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|