RM-11708: CW and RTTY users please read

[Richard Thorne-4]

To all CW/RTTY users...

RM-11708, as currently written/proposed, will have a detrimental and
negative impact on the cw/rtty sub-bands.

Ted, N9NB, is very well versed on the subject.  Please check
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Rappaport for Ted's back ground.  
He is a very active amateur, I worked him in the NAQP last night.

I'm including the body of a recent email that Ted wrote.  I strongly
urge each of you to research the subject matter and contact your ARRL
representatives soon.  In addition it would be helpful to make a comment
on RM-11708 as described below....

Rich - N5ZC

****

Dear Colleagues: If you believe, as I do, that RM 11708 is dangerous for
the hobby, both in the US, I ask that you PLEASE take action  by filling
public comments regarding the FCC's recent RM 11708 ruling, 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. If you do not agree with me, or don't care, then feel free to
delete and stop reading.
I am  fearful and quite certain  that RM 11708, 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. 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, somethng the FCC has never allowed. The FCC is proposing an
unlimited bandwidth for data signals (the ARRL asked for 2.8 kHz, the
bandwidth of SSB, which was still bad -- 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 of Pactor, multi tone data modems, and other experimental
data modes on all HF bands within the lowest 75 or 100 kHz region.
Otherwise, these monster QRMers of unlimited bandwidth will be allowed
to operate anywhere, and they will lawfully fire up on your CW or RTTY
qso when you are least expecting it.
See below how the proponents of RM 11708, including my friend Tom
Whiteside, are launching an aggressive 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 way Japan does (The public filing period ends in a couple
of weeks, so we must write now to offer opposition). The need for
WinLink/Pactor data emergency communication on HF is being used as one
of the arguments for expanding the data bandwidth. I would urge CW and
RTTY enthusiasts to review the arguments for and against RM 11708, and
move 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-16-96A1.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 their proposed
rulemaking.
You can see the ballet box is again be flooded for the expanded data
privileges. 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&proceedings_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

***

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[k6dgw]

[I left Rich's complete email on this reply to make reference easier]

Ted's warning [that wideband emissions can now occur in the RTTY/Data
sub-bands] is real, and quite obviously, the effects are world-wide, not
just in the US.  NPRM-11708 does in fact propose to remove all bandwidth
limits in the MF/HF RTTY/Data sub-bands, which I will abbreviate "RDS"
from here on.  Note however, we are discussing RDS in the MF/HF amateur
allocations [essentially below 30 MHz] only.

<factoid#1>Right now, on 21 Aug 2016, there are *no* bandwidth limits
for any emissions in the RDS.  Read that again ... today, with no action
by the FCC at all, I can communicate with my buddy using a 256-QAM
emission at about 25 KHz bandwidth.</factoid#1>

In 1980 and for awhile afterward, the symbol rate limit of 300/sec *did*
impose a bandwidth limit of about 1-analog telephone channel because
data transmission then was some variant of FSK [only], and 1 bit equaled
1 symbol.  Bandwidth limit by proxy.  We all know that the situation in
coding and modulation theory changed dramatically in the 30+ years since
and today, 1 symbol can include essentially any number of bits you choose.

<factoid#2>In their original petition, ARRL, realizing that the "limit
by proxy" was no longer effective, sought to impose a direct bandwidth
limit in the RDS.  As a peripheral matter, they suggested removing the
no longer effective 300/sec symbol rate limit</factoid#2>

ARRL chose 2.8 KHz for several reasons:  It's about "1 analog telephone
channel's" worth of bandwidth; that was essentially the "limit by proxy"
in 1980; and it would have no effect whatsoever on any existing
emissions and users.  Note the last ... it will come up again.

<factoid#3>PACTOR3, which has been around a long time, which has a
fairly well established user base and infrastructure, and with which we
have co-existed, has an occupied bandwidth of about 2.1 KHz.  PACTOR4,
prohibited now because its symbol rate is about 1,000/sec, has an
occupied bandwidth of about 2.4 KHz</factoid#3>

Unless you memorize the sound of PACTOR's, none of us will notice the
coming of PACTOR4, and all the PACTORs are an unfortunate serious
distraction to the matter at hand.  NPRM-11708 isn't about PACTOR and
never was.

<factoid#4>Actions by the FCC are governed by the Administrative
Procedures Act [APA] which requires a somewhat slow process that
includes multiple opportunities for public input</factoid#4>

The matter at hand in NPRM-11708 contains exactly two questions:  1)
Should the symbol rate limit of 300/sec at 97.309(f) be eliminated?; and
2) Should a specified limit of 2.8 KHz occupied bandwidth in the RDS be
imposed?

Those are the ONLY two issues that can be decided in this proceeding.
Any comment/request outside those two issues will be ignored.  Folks,
read that again.  If you want to be heard, you must speak to those two
issues.  Anything else is irrelevant to the proceeding at hand.

<factoid#5>There is no distinction within any of the RDS that segregates
different permitted emission types, and there hasn't been since the
mid-50's when the FCC first authorized 850 Hz shift FSK, 45.5 baud,
ITA-2 radioteleprinter emissions.</factoid#5>

There are no MF/HF CW-only sub-bands, and there haven't been for longer
than many here have been alive.  Nothing in NPRM-11708 is going to cause
encroachment on anything that isn't already a possibility today.
Suggesting otherwise is non-factual, and will be ignored at the FCC.

If in your comments, you assert that 2.8 KHz is too wide and something
smaller [1 KHz or even 500 Hz] should be the limit as Ted suggests, your
comment will be ignored.  Why?  Two reasons ... that is not part of the
current proceeding; and, more importantly, it would prohibit emissions
that have been permitted for years and for which there are user,
equipment, and infrastructure bases in place.

Kicking currently authorized emissions out of the amateur allocations is
a Really Big Deal [RBD], and any RBD would require one or more new
proceedings under the APA.  If you want to divide the RDS's into
sub-segments -- CW, PSK/JTxx, PACTOR<anything>, which would be another
RBD, you must file a petition to do so.  If you want a hard bandwidth
limit that prohibits currently authorized emission[s], you must file a
petition to do that.  Good luck.

Way over half of the original ~1,500 comments to RM-11708 in 2013 were
extraneous to the issue at hand and were most likely ignored.  In the
process, we lost a lot of credibility with the FCC.  We're supposed to
understand 47CFR97.  We did a terrible job of doing that in 2013.  We
really need to do better in 2016.  It may be our last chance for awhile.

73,

Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW #142
- Northern California Contest Club
- CU in the Cal QSO Party 1-2 Oct 2016
- www.cqp.org

On 8/21/2016 11:14 AM, Richard Thorne wrote:

> To all CW/RTTY users...
>
> RM-11708, as currently written/proposed, will have a detrimental and
> negative impact on the cw/rtty sub-bands.
>
> Ted, N9NB, is very well versed on the subject.  Please check
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Rappaport for Ted's back ground.
> He is a very active amateur, I worked him in the NAQP last night.
>
> I'm including the body of a recent email that Ted wrote.  I strongly
> urge each of you to research the subject matter and contact your ARRL
> representatives soon.  In addition it would be helpful to make a comment
> on RM-11708 as described below....
>
> Rich - N5ZC
>
> ****
>
> Dear Colleagues: If you believe, as I do, that RM 11708 is dangerous for
> the hobby, both in the US, I ask that you PLEASE take action  by filling
> public comments regarding the FCC's recent RM 11708 ruling, 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. If you do not agree with me, or don't care, then feel free to
> delete and stop reading.
> I am  fearful and quite certain  that RM 11708, 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. 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, somethng the FCC has never allowed. The FCC is proposing an
> unlimited bandwidth for data signals (the ARRL asked for 2.8 kHz, the
> bandwidth of SSB, which was still bad -- 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 of Pactor, multi tone data modems, and other experimental
> data modes on all HF bands within the lowest 75 or 100 kHz region.
> Otherwise, these monster QRMers of unlimited bandwidth will be allowed
> to operate anywhere, and they will lawfully fire up on your CW or RTTY
> qso when you are least expecting it.
> See below how the proponents of RM 11708, including my friend Tom
> Whiteside, are launching an aggressive 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 way Japan does (The public filing period ends in a couple
> of weeks, so we must write now to offer opposition). The need for
> WinLink/Pactor data emergency communication on HF is being used as one
> of the arguments for expanding the data bandwidth. I would urge CW and
> RTTY enthusiasts to review the arguments for and against RM 11708, and
> move 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-16-96A1.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 their proposed
> rulemaking.
> You can see the ballet box is again be flooded for the expanded data
> privileges. 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&proceedings_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

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Barry K3NDM]

Rich,
     First, the FCC  will entertain comments until 1 October according to
what I have read. Second, this is being pushed by the HFLINK group so
that their radios are compatible with the military HFALE radios. Yes,
this will have a detrimental impact in the CW/data portion of the bands.

     The argument is all of the current modes are obsolete and legacy.
Additionally, ham radio can not progress unless there is a place to
invent new modes and increase baud rates. Their argument does not
account for the need for additional bandwidth. On the HFLINK reflector,
they talk about about needing this to support disaster communications,
however, that is handled nicely by VHF/UHF voice and HF disaster nets.
Data needs are being handled nicely by the Winlink network on both HF
and VHF. And now, HSMM is coming on line with mega bit data rates. And,
the best part of all of this is that it can come together without the
need for infrastructure. RM-11708 is not the best thought out NPR that I
have read. And what is unfortunate is the ARRL has supported it.

     If you are worried about this, comments need to be sent to the FCC;
the procedure is on the ARRL web site. And, the ARRL should be notified
of your concern via mail or email, and before 1 October. The sooner the
better. I have already done this.

73,
Barry
K3NDM
------ Original Message ------
From: "Richard Thorne" <[hidden email]>
To: "Elecraft Reflector" <[hidden email]>
Sent: 8/21/2016 2:14:57 PM
Subject: [Elecraft] RM-11708: CW and RTTY users please read

>To all CW/RTTY users...
>
>RM-11708, as currently written/proposed, will have a detrimental and
>negative impact on the cw/rtty sub-bands.
>
>Ted, N9NB, is very well versed on the subject.  Please check
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Rappaport for Ted's back ground.
>  He is a very active amateur, I worked him in the NAQP last night.
>
>I'm including the body of a recent email that Ted wrote.  I strongly
>urge each of you to research the subject matter and contact your ARRL
>representatives soon.  In addition it would be helpful to make a
>comment on RM-11708 as described below....
>
>Rich - N5ZC
>
>****
>
>Dear Colleagues: If you believe, as I do, that RM 11708 is dangerous
>for the hobby, both in the US, I ask that you PLEASE take action  by
>filling public comments regarding the FCC's recent RM 11708 ruling, 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. If you do not agree with me, or don't care, then feel
>free to delete and stop reading.
>I am  fearful and quite certain  that RM 11708, 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. 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, somethng the FCC has never allowed.
>The FCC is proposing an unlimited bandwidth for data signals (the ARRL
>asked for 2.8 kHz, the bandwidth of SSB, which was still bad -- 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 of Pactor, multi tone data modems, and
>other experimental data modes on all HF bands within the lowest 75 or
>100 kHz region. Otherwise, these monster QRMers of unlimited bandwidth
>will be allowed to operate anywhere, and they will lawfully fire up on
>your CW or RTTY qso when you are least expecting it.
>See below how the proponents of RM 11708, including my friend Tom
>Whiteside, are launching an aggressive 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 way Japan does (The public filing period
>ends in a couple of weeks, so we must write now to offer opposition).
>The need for WinLink/Pactor data emergency communication on HF is being
>used as one of the arguments for expanding the data bandwidth. I would
>urge CW and RTTY enthusiasts to review the arguments for and against RM
>11708, and move 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-16-96A1.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 their proposed
>rulemaking.
>You can see the ballet box is again be flooded for the expanded data
>privileges. 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&proceedings_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
>
>***
>
>______________________________________________________________
>Elecraft mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
>This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]