Jeff,
Best I can suggest is to contact with Charles N5PVL, as he had a site with
information on how to do this that I can no longer find.
Matthew Pitts
N8OHU
On August 16, 2016 9:26:21 AM EDT, Jeff AC0C <keepwalking188@ac0c.com> wrote:
>Was there a reply to this? I think I have missed it if there was.
>
>If not, maybe someone else can authoritatively answer. I am genuinely
>interested in understanding this one specific concern.
>
>73/jeff/ac0c
>www.ac0c.com
>alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff AC0C
>Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2016 12:00 PM
>To: Matthew Pitts ; RTTY Reflector
>Cc: Ted Rappaport N9NB
>Subject: Re: [RTTY] FW: If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of
>theessence
>
>Matthew,
>
>Can you expand on item #2, specifically the ability of a monitoring
>station
>without a P4 modem's ability to identify the callsigns of an exchange
>occurring between two stations running P4?
>
>73/jeff/ac0c
>www.ac0c.com
>alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew Pitts via RTTY
>Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2016 9:34 AM
>To: RTTY Reflector
>Cc: Ted Rappaport N9NB
>Subject: Re: [RTTY] FW: If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of
>theessence
>
>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-education-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&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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
|