Forwarding on behalf of Ted N9NB ?
73,
Ed W0YK
___________________________________________
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ted <tsrwvcomm@aol.com>
Date: August 14, 2016 at 10:55:40 AM EDT
To: Matthew Pitts <n8ohu@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] FW: If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the
essence
Hi Matthew: thanks for sending me your note.
I am not a part of the RTTY email list. So, I would ask you to please
forward my note as a rebuttal to your comments. I will also send this to a
few people who are perhaps on that RTTY alias, in case you don't care to
forward my note.
I am happy to reply to Mathew Pitts' comments, and hope you all will read
carefully the NPRM issued by the FCC this July 28, 2016. And please spread
the word. This is not fear mongering, as I have too many things to do in my
day job to spend time on anything that is not real. I am trying to get
people to read the NPRM and realize what is happening ? and its sad for me
to see how hard it is to get CW/RTTY enthusiasts to realize that they are
false to assume the ARRL and FCC would preserve CW or RTTY. They now have to
take serious action if they care about preserving their operating bands.
Understanding this and the history of the digital aggression goals of ARRL,
WINLINK, and the boating community is vital to realize the ramifications of
the July 28 2016 NPRM by the FCC. The NPRM 11708 of July 28 2016 is about to
become law and is what the FCC intends to do if there is not a vocal outcry.
In particular, please read Paragraphs 9 through 12 of the FCC's NPRM of July
28,2016 super carefully!That?s were it is clear that the DATA/RTTY HF
subbands, which include ALL CW and RTTY frequencies, from the lowest edge of
the HF band up until the Voice/Image subbands, will be subjected to
unlimited bandwidth new data signals. That is, the FCC is proposing to
authorize UNLIMITED BANDWIDTH, and UNLIMITED DATA RATE signals in the ENTIRE
Data/RTTY HF subbands from the lowest edge up to the SSB/Voice/IMAGE
subbands. All of the CW and RTTY frequencies are impacted in that sub band ?
that?s where CW and RTTY operate ? that should be clear to anyone reading
the NPRM.
This NPRM is a rule, with the force of law, about to be passed by the FCC.
Its already gone much farther than RM 11306 did when the ARRL tried this
same proposal at the FCC in 2005 to put this wideband data in the
SSB/Phone/Image band ? the ARRL pulled it because the SSB operators were
well organized and vocal. But now they have gotten it through the FCC in the
CW/RTTY subbands --- it never went that far before, because SSB hams shouted
it down at the ARRL............sadly CW/RTTY operators have not been
successful and have had huge apathy and skepticism about the threat, and now
this is about to become law unless there is a MAJOR outcry and comments at
both the FCC and ARRL to stop the interference in the lowest 100 kHz.).
Please, please educate yourself by reading about RM 11306 on the web. It was
a ferocious battle in 2005-2007 . The ARRL withdrew it in 2007, finally.
They then retooled it in 2013 as RM 11708, and have it about ready to get
into law ? UNLESS people respond mightily to ARRL officials and the FCC
during this 2 month comment period. this is not fear mongering, I assure
you. Its trying to get people awake and aware of the pending law in the FCC
publication. Without strong consideration and response, ham radio in the US
will be subject to this rule making, and its going to be very bad for
CW/RTTY, just like the SSB ops saw and successfully fought off in RM 11306.
For history, see RM 11306 on the web. So many thousands of posts rejected RM
11306, an arrl board member resigned in disgust, here is just one simple
sample assessment, when the ARRL proposed this identical proposal 10 years
ago, except in the phone sub bands, (Now they are getting it into the
Data/RTTY subbands, which by definition are where CW and narrowband modes
operate):
http://www.eham.net/articles/13018
Here are specific answers to some of your questions or doubts about the
gravity of rm 11708 by the FCC :
Yes, this impacts all CW and RTTY on HF, because the NPRM specifies all HF
?Data/RTTY? subbands. That is the subband where CW and RTTY and narrowband
JT65 and PSK 31 operate.
Yes, the FCC is proposing UNLIMITED bandwidth. Even if the FCC accepted
ARRL?s 2.8 kHz bandwidth limit, the problem STILL negatively impacts CW and
RTTY signals, since Pactor 4 and other HF modems will be allowed in ANY
CW/RTTY frequency, and digitized voice of up to 2.8 kHz bandwidth will also
be allowed on ANY CW /RTTY frequency. This would cause widerband SSB-like
bandwidth signals to mix and overtake CW/RTTY narrowband signals. Note that
CW has only 200 Hz max bandwidth, RTTY has 500 Hz max bandwidth. These
narrowband signals cannot be used when they are clobbered by 2.8 kHz wide
band signals. That is why the FCC never allowed SSB to operate on top of the
CW/RTTY signals. We must keep this segregation by bandwidth to assure CW and
RTTY can operate without wideband interference. That is why I and others are
advocating that the NPRM be MODIFIED to limit the emission bandwidth to 200
Hz in the lowest 50 kHz of each HF subband, and why a limit of 500 Hz should
be enforced for the lowest 100 kHz of each subband. That would assure that
CW and RTTY would not be subjected to wider band interfernce, while still
allowing wider band data to exist above 100 kHz above the lowest HF edges.
Regarding Pactor and its problems, that is, what we will be subjected to if
the ARRL?s 2.8 kHz bandwidth is eventually accepted at the FCC (right now,
that does not look likely ? the FCC wants to open the bandwidth to be much
greater ? unlimited)
PACTOR in general (I do not know the specifics of PACTOR 4) uses run
length encoding and decoding a technique in which common words and
strings of two or more letters (e.g., sh, ing, in, on, the, etc.) are
replaced with a "token." In addition, the resulting message is then
compressed (apparently PACTOR 4 adds the ability to use an ecrypted "key"
for
the commercial version).
However, the developers of PACTOR do not release details of either the
compression algorithm or the substitution table for PACTOR 2 - 4.
so its not really public, and its unintelligible unless you buy the $1500
modem. and there is no cw ID. Yet its being used today in ham radio under
the guise of being published. It?s a grey issue.
When you read the FCC NPRM Paragraph 10, they mention 97.309( a) as being
the only codes allowable on HF/MF
, but the problem is §97.309 (a) contains several parts - it specifies ITA
2, AMTOR (SITOR)
and ASCII data formats ("Codes") but also - in §97.309 (a)(4) - lists
several permitted *transmission methods* (or "encoding methods") "whose
technical characteristics have been documented publicly" including
PACTOR. But that?s not really whats happening today.
The issue is that the only the original PACTOR was *publicly documented*
- the PACTOR 2 - 4 encoding systems are **NOT** publicly documented! Yet
Pactor 3 is operating today.People cannot stop or identify offending
transmissions that QRM them with Pactor 3. Will be so much worse with Pactor
4 and future data signals!
Another major real problem is in §97.309 (b) which permits "undocumented
codes"
under certain circumstances. The loopholes in §97.309 (b) are big
enough to drive a bus through. Has been the cause of QRM already for years
with automated data.
All of this will become so much worse if NPRM is legalized, and the FCC is
not dealing with these issues and are ignoring it, as you can see in NPRM
paragraph 10, where it simply assumes all hams will use only enough
bandwidth as they need .Yet the FCC contradicts itself and says that
wideband experimentatoin should be supported, of arbitrary large bandwith,
so there is a huge disaster waiting to happen if the NPRM is passed as is
---- the existing problems with Pactor will immediately errupt into a huge
mess and no regulation on the TTY subbands! right now, the FCC is leaning
towards no bandwidth protection and no bandwidth limit for the lowest 100
kHz of each HF band for CW/RTTY to keep all emissions below 200 or 500 Hz.
You allow wider transmissions than this, e.g. unlimited bandwidths as
proposed by the FCC, or 2.8 kHz bandwidths as originally proposed by the
ARRL, and the entire CW/RTTY lower portion of HF becomes swallowed up in
wider bandwdith data signals, either PACTOR or wider with digitized voice,
etc. over time. that is what is at stake. I hope this makes sense! {Please,
please get active and spread the word, if you care about CW or RTTY.
Thus, Matthew's desire to minimize the impact of the FCC's proposal is not
accurate. Also, Canada has a tiny fraction of hams as the US and propagation
from VE often goes over the US on high bands- It's a red herring. This is a
real threat to all of RTTY and CW and requires immediate action and
thoughtful comments to the FCC and ARRL officials.
73 ted n9nb
Sent from smartphone, please excuse typos
On Aug 14, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Matthew Pitts <n8ohu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Some major flaws that I see in his argument are:
1: Digital voice is classified as "Phone" hence not permitted in the
RTTY/data segment to begin with; that won't change even if the FCC bandwidth
proposal is enacted as written.
2: Data compression is not encryption, and Winlink doesn't even use the
Pactor data compression anyway; they use the same one that is used in the
F6FBB Packet BBS. Also, the FEC ID capabilities for all versions of Pactor
are identical, so any software that can decode Pactor 1 can be used to ID an
interfering station.
3: Despite what he's claiming, there is absolutely no interest in
implementation of such things, even if some tiny fraction of users might
want to see it happen.
4: As I said before, claims of a massive increase in the number of automatic
stations or wide bandwidth digital voice stations swamping the RTTY/Data
bands are nothing more than FUD.
Also, a 500 Hz bandwidth limit would do little to reduce interference when
Canada has a 6 kHz bandwidth limit.
Matthew Pitts
N8OHU
On August 13, 2016 10:15:10 PM EDT, Jim McDonald <jim@n7us.net> wrote:
I just received the note below from Ted, N9NB.
As Ted says, if you don?t agree with him or don?t care about this, then
please delete the message.
Here?s a summary of his background:
http://www.arrl.org/news/ted-rappaport-n9nb-named-recipient-of-ieee-educatio
n-award
.
73, Jim N7US
From: Ted Rappaport N9NB [mailto:tsrwvcomm@aol.com]
Sent: August 13, 2016 20:26
To: Jim McDonald <jim@n7us.net>
Subject: Re: If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence
Jim, I really appreciated your note, and hope you are able to reach
many many people.
This is quite real, and hope that you and others will write the ARRL
CEO as well as all your elected ARRL directors when you file your FCC
comments. Here is a note I sent out to the PVRC, giving 4 examples of
what will happen if this NPRM is not modified. I fear that everyone who
likes CW and RTTY has no clue how real of a threat this is.
Thanks for your interest and your help to save CW and RTTY from massive
digital data and digitized voice traffice. This is our last ditch
effort. If the present day apathy by CW/RTTY ops continue, and if ARRL
and FCC do not hear clearly from people who care, we will lose our HF
protections forever.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Hi y?all:
Life is short, and this great hobby has enough room for everyone!
Pactor, DX, Winlink, Contestting, SSB, RTTY, etc...... We can all
coexist, but the HF spectrum is very limited, and sadly the FCC is
about to sign into law a really grave error that will completely
disrupt CW/RTTY if you don?t read and file comments at the FCC about
NPRM 11708 and WT 16239. We must write to both our ARRL officials at
all levels, as well as file public comments at the FCC.
The FCC is about to make this officially law, but is taking last ditch
comments from now (up until October 5th or so) and then during a one
month ?Reply to Comments? phase. this is our LAST CHANCE to really get
the base of CW/RTTY users to write in to ARRL and FCC officials to
modify this law.... NPRM RM 11708 cannot be repelled at this point,
only modified, unless a miracle occurs and ARRL recinds it ? not likely
unless tens of thousands of us write to ARRL officials while also
filing comments.
Here is what RM 11708 will enable, if it is passed into law as the FCC
is proposing in its NPRM 11708 published on July 28, 2016. Note the FCC
ignored ARRL?s request for a 2.8 kHz bandwidth to replace the 300 baud
limit, and instead is proposing an **unlimited** bandwidth limit with
no baud rate limit. Unfortunately, neither the ARRL or FCC have
recognized the resulting interference that will occur to the narrowband
CW and RTTY users, and have never once considered a 200 Hz bandwidth
emission limit on the lower 50 kHz and 500 Hz emission bandwidth limit
on the lower 100 kHz of every HF band (That is what is needed for
protection, and we must write in by the tens of thousands!!! To ARRL
and to FCC! See footnote 37in their July NPRM, very short shrift given
to this argument!). Here is what will happen if CW/RTTY apathy
continues:
1. SSB and other voice operations will be freely allowed in all the
CW/Data/RTTY segments of HF with unlimited bandwidth, as long as the
signals are digitized into data first. This NPRM opens up digitized
voice to the CW/RTTY lower end HF bands -- digitized voice using
12.5khz c4fm stations will be allowed, since the FCC has not proposed
a bandwidth limitation. And this is not a conspiracy theory, its real.
2. If the rule passes without any bandwidth limit, or with the ARRL?s
suggested 2.8 kHz bandwidth limit on the low end, Pactor 4 will be
permitted and conversations will be encrypted as part of the protocol.
And if there were to be a way to listen in, it?s going to require a the
purchase of a Pactor 4 modem which is not cheap. Meaning you have no
ability to identify the call sign of a station short of engaging in a
Pactor 4 based conversation. No way for OO?s to find offending station
since no CW id is needed.
3. A lot of the Automatic Data stations (the auto repeaters that are
already causing great QRM) are tied in with the watercraft and boating
crowd. Which means the stations would ring the coastline using new data
services in the CW/Data part of the band to log into Facebook, check
weather, and make dinner reservations. So unless you are beaming
north, you are going to be pointing toward one of those stations.
4. At about 2.4 Khz per station for Pactor 4, and with MANY more
stations active (the P4 speeds make email via HF a lot faster and less
painful, which will drive more users after this NPRM is legalized), it
won?t take much to swamp all the traditional RTTY segment. That pushes
the RTTY guys down into the top of the CW segment. And not to even
mention digitized voice signals that will be allowed there, too!
No matter how you slice it, even with voluntary band plans, this means
trouble for the RTTY operators right up front, and more congestion for
the CW bands as a result. Of course, the SSB guys successfully
defeated essentially the same proposal 10 years ago (ARRL TRIED TO PASS
RM 11306 in 2005, but rescinded it in 2007 because the SSB operators
made enough noise to get the ARRL to pull it from the FCC
consideration?Check out RM 11306 and -- CW and RTTY apathy has failed
to make enough noise, and now this is about to become law). It has
gone too far, and CW/RTTY people have not been heard, and this is about
to remove the enjoyment of our bands forever! Please get active. This
is real. Please don?t take this lightly and do nothing, please get your
CW/RTTY friends engaged. Read the NPRM! See Footnote 37. See what the
FCC is about to sign into law. You only have 2 months to move the ARRL
and the FCC to modify this rule.
Lets give Pactor 4 and Winlink its due at 100 kHz and above from the
low end of HF, but lets also preserve the lowest 50 kHz for CW and
lowest 100 kHz for RTTY by urgently requesting bandwidth limits that
preserve CW and RTTY.
Tell your ARRL official and write in to the FCC about the need to have
narrow bandwidth protection in the low end of HF if they remove the 300
baud rate -- we need tens of thousands of thoughtful responses! I am
copying Brennen Price, ARRL?s CTO and PVRC member, here. And I hope you
and others will similarly write him and all ARRL officials while you
submit your short, focused comment to the FCC on RM 11708 and WT 16239
to seek interference protection on the low part of HF, as well.
73 ted n9nb
On 8/8/2016 12:14 AM, 'Jim McDonald' jim@n7us.net <mailto:jim@n7us.net>
wrote:
>From the SMC reflector.
73, Jim N7US
-----Original Message-----
From: SMC [mailto:smc-bounces@w9smc.com] On Behalf Of Mike Wetzel
Sent: August 07, 2016 18:38
To: smc@w9smc.com <mailto:smc@w9smc.com>
Subject: [SMC] if you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence
>From Dr. Ted Rappaport N9NB
Dear Colleagues:
If you believe, as I do, that the proposal to unregulate the bandwidth
of
data signals (like Pactor 4) in the lower HF portion of the spectrum is
dangerous for the hobby, both in the US and abroad, then please read on
as
we need your help. If you do not agree with me, or don't care about
this,
then feel free to delete and stop reading.
I ask that you PLEASE take action by filling public comments with the
FCC
regarding their recent RM 11708 proposed rulemaking in WT Docket No.
16-239
and RM-11708, and please forward this to every CW and RTTY enthusiast
you
know in ham radio, on every reflector, in every CW and RTTY club, both
in
the US and elsewhere, and urge them to also file comments with the FCC.
We
have less than 3 weeks to voice our opinion! It was not heard in
2014-2015.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE! There are less than 3 weeks during which the
FCC
will accept comments.
I am fearful and quite certain that RM 11708, as published in WT Docket
No.
16-239 , which the FCC is now seeking public comment on as a prelude to
enact its ruling, will terribly erode CW and RTTY on the HF bands in
its
current form. The ruling will allow PACTOR 4 and multi-tone modems on
any
frequency within the CW/RTTY frequencies on HF. This is worse than
allowing
SSB to operate throughout the CW/data sub bands, something the FCC has
never
allowed. The FCC is proposing an unlimited bandwidth for data signals
in the
lower HF bands (the ARRL asked for 2.8 kHz-- the bandwidth of SSB---
which
was still bad - and the FCC proposal is even worse). I would urge all
of you
write in to object to RM 11708 and to ask that the FCC place a 500 Hz
bandwidth limit all data transmission bandwidths such as Pactor, multi
tone
data modems, and other experimental data modes on all HF bands within
the
lowest 75 or 100 kHz region of each HF band. Japan has something
similar. If
we don't generate large support from hams to scale back the FCC
proposal,
and put a bandwidth cap in some portion of the lower HF bands, these
monster
QRMers of unlimited bandwidth will be allowed to operate anywhere in
the
CW/RTTY lower HF bands, and they will lawfully fire up on your CW or
RTTY QS
when you are least expecting it.
See below how the proponents of RM 11708, including my friend Tom
Whiteside,
are launching an aggressive letter-writing campaign for "pro" comments
to be
filed at the FCC to allow Pactor 4 and other wideband multi-tone modems
to
operate anywhere in the CW/RTTY spectrum, without a segregation of the
band.
The public filing period ends in a few weeks, so we must write now to
offer
opposition to the Commission. The need for WinLink/Pactor data
emergency
communication on HF is being used as one of the arguments for expanding
the
data bandwidth. See the other arguments below. I would urge CW and RTTY
enthusiasts to review the arguments for and against RM 11708, see the
public
comments filed from March 2014 to today, and please be moved to quickly
to
write about your opposition to the newly proposed regulation just
released
by the FCC (It can be viewed here):
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0728/FCC-16-9
6A1.pdf
Please see Tom's email below on how to file a comment, but I would urge
you
to read the FCC proposal and file comments *against* the FCC's proposed
rulemaking. You can see the ballet box is again be flooded for the
expanded
data privileges in the past week - there are only 20 days to file
comments.
If this ruling is enacted, and the FCC is leaning that way, this will
come
at a cost to CW and RTTY . See these comments already filed:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?sort=date_disseminated,DESC
<https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?sort=date_disseminated,DESC
<https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?sort=date_disseminated,DESC&proceed
i> &proceedi>
&proceedi
ngs_name=RM-11708
Unfortunately, in the FCC proposed ruling issued over a week ago, the
Commission appears to have ignored ALL comments made by hams after the
initial 30 day comment period back in late 2013. During that one month
period, there was a 95% "pro" letter writing campaign by over 800
people --
It was only after the CW and RTTY enthusiasts woke up in March of 2014
that
public comments became overwhelmingly negative against RM 11708.
Unfortunately, the FCC has apparently ignored all of those comments, so
new
comments need to be filed on the FCC;s recent ruling.
If you care about CW and RTTY, please file comments against the ruling,
to
preserve some sanctuary for narrowband data (having less than 500 Hz
bandwidth), the way the largest ham country (Japan) has done to ensure
no
QRM to CW and RTTY enthusiasts.
Thanks for considering.
Best 73 ted n9nb
Winlink Global Radio Email for Disasters or Emergency Preparedness
communications. Group
1 Message
Digest #4406
1
Comments on RM-11708 - time to get those comments in! by "Tom
Whiteside"
n5tw
Message
1
Comments on RM-11708 - time to get those comments in!
Fri Aug 5, 2016 2:36 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Tom Whiteside" n5tw
As you have heard on this reflector, the FCC has amended the ARRL filed
RM-11708 and is now seeking comments on this. It is critical that we
add our
supporting comments during this period and the process below is a step
by
step on how to do so.
I'd suggest something simple - please make it clear that you support
the
amended proposal - these responses are going to be tallied at least at
the
first level by clerks so be clear! In my filing, I emphasized the clear
gain
in efficiency with the elimination of the archaic symbol rate and sited
currently not legal Pactor 4's ability to double the throughput in the
same
bandwidth as Pactor 3 and that this would bring us on par with the rest
of
the world.
Use your own words - form letters will be seen as such.
And thanks for your important support! Instructions on filing below:
Tom Whiteside N5TW
=====================
IMPORTANT MESSAGE: Time is running out for comments supporting RM-11708
to
the FCC, which would remove the symbol rate limitation from FCC rules,
and
allow hams to use Pactor 4 modems in the USA. If the proposed rule
change
fails this time, it will be years before we have another chance.
It is very easy to submit a comment. Please do. You don't have to say
much
other than you think it's a good idea, and that you support it.
Here are the steps to submit a comment.
1. Go to <http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/> <http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/>
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/
2. Select "Submit a Filing (Express)" from the list in the upper left
corner
of the screen.
3. In the topmost paragraph of the next screen, click "click here to
manually enter your docket number"
.
4. Enter RM-11708 as the "Proceeding Number". Enter your name, address,
and
type your comments in the bottom field.
5. Click "Continue";, and then click the "Confirm" button on the
summary
page it will display.
6. If everything goes properly, it will give you a submission
confirmation
number.
Here are the relevant points:
a. The proposed change does not alter the bandwidth limits or the
frequencies available for digital use, so no new frequency space is
being
used. It has no negative impact on the Ham spectrum.
2. The use of Pactor 4 simply makes the use of existing bandwidth more
efficient, so additional traffic can be passed without allocating new
frequencies.
3. The further development of even faster protocols in the same
bandwidth
limitations depends on the success of this rulemaking
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|