Bandwidth limits have been used for many years in the IARU Region 1 plan. They
are voluntary and are complied with by the vast majority of operators (I would
say >99%).
So the "RTTY" segments are 500Hz bandwidth, "CW" segments are 200Hz and "SSB"
2700Hz. However some are further qualified by type of use as well.
For a better understanding then look here:
https://thersgb.org/services/bandplans/html/rsgb_band_plan_june_2016.htm
Seems to be that the land of the free is not the land of the free when it comes
to amateur radio regulations. They are vastly more onerous and complex than the
ones here in the UK. For those who want to know more here is the current UK
licence:
http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/spectrum/amateur-radio/guidance-for-licensees/amateur-terms.pdf
73 David G3YYD
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: 29 July 2016 13:49
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708
> leave in place "named emissions" or whatever the term is
§97.309 RTTY and data emission codes.
(a) Where authorized by §§97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of the part, an amateur
station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using the following specified
digital codes:
(1) The 5-unit, start-stop, International Telegraph Alphabet No. 2, code
defined in ITU-T Recommendation F.1, Division C (commonly known as “Baudot”).
(2) The 7-unit code specified in ITU-R Recommendations M.476-5 and
M.625-3 (commonly known as “AMTOR”).
(3) The 7-unit, International Alphabet No. 5, code defined in IT--T
Recommendation T.50 (commonly known as “ASCII”).
(4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital
code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical
characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or
PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.
(b) Where authorized by §§97.305(c) and 97.307(f), a station may transmit a
RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in
a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting
the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes
must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any
communication. When deemed necessary by a Regional Director to assure
compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must:
(1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code;
(2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed;
(3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital
communications transmitted.
> We want to hear from the public with respect to increasing symbol
> ratealone.
The point that needs to be made is that symbol rate can not be increased
independent of bandwidth. Increasing the symbol rate will automatically
increase the occupied bandwidth (and potential QRM to traditional users).
The Commission really needs to abolish the outdated concept of Voice/Image vs.
RTTY/DATA. Once that concept rooted in the 1920's is eliminated simply apply a
maximum bandwidth of 400 Hz in the current "RTTY/DATA" allocations (sufficient
for 45.45/75 baud RTTY, PSK31/63/125, PACTOR (1), and the "narrow" versions of
Olivia/MFSK/Contestia/DominoEX/etc.) and a bandwidth limitation of 2.7 KHz (as
is the case on 60Meters) in the rest of the HF bands (with a specific exception
for traditional double sideband AM).
Eliminating the outdated Voice/Image vs. RTTY/DATA distinction is not a blanket
bandwidth limit but protects users of traditional narrow bandwidth modes while
allowing continued development of higher speed/wider bandwidth digital modes in
the "wide" segments of the bands (with the exception of 30 meters).
segments.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 7/29/2016 9:20 AM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:
> Did I miss something?
>
> What I read was:
>
> Tentatively, yes to drop symbol rate limitation.
> No to a blanket bandwidth limitation and leave in place "named emissions" or
> whatever the term is, that specify allowed modes.
> We want to hear from the public with respect to increasing symbol rate alone.
>
> Al
> AB2ZY
>
> ________________________________________
> From: RTTY <rtty-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of Jim AC0E
> <ham@odsgc.net>
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 8:14 AM
> To: Ron Kolarik; rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708
>
> Ron,
>
> Appears we may be screwed and the winlink folks could prevail.
>
> I can't believe the commercial folks have not made a peep about this
> issue as it flies directly out of their pocketbook.
> It also will set up a company with a closed system to be the big winner..
>
> I'm so disheartend about this issue and the Feds in general and Dave,
> K1ZZ, for, apparently, helping promote this BS.
>
> See you the bands while we still can operate. So much for working to
> have cleans signals and NOT create harmful interference.
>
> Jim AC0E
>
>
> On 7/28/2016 3:51 PM, Ron Kolarik wrote:
>> RM-11708 has advanced to NPRM status, WTB 16-239, you may access it
>> from the FCC ECFS site. 60 day comment period, 90 day reply to
>> comments.
>>
>> Please read and understand what the FCC is requesting for comments
>> before commenting.
>>
>> Ron K0IDT
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>> ---
>> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
>> Virus Database (VPS): 160728-1, 07/28/2016 Tested on: 7/28/2016
>> 4:00:36 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2016 AVAST Software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> James Douglass AC0E
> PO Box 506
> Garden City, Kansas 67846
> 620.272.7620 cell/text
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 160729-0, 07/29/2016 Tested on: 7/29/2016
> 7:14:44 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2016 AVAST Software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|