Email Robots are coming to RTTY and CW!

The Email robots are coming to the RTTY and CW activity areas of the bands!

Having failed to convince the FCC to allow ARRL/Winlink email robots to operate anywhere in the phone bands, the ARRL is trying again, through a special meeting with the FCC, to modify Part 97.221 to allow them to cover the RTTY/Data/CW bands anywhere at will, which will cause serious harm to RTTY and CW contesting, DXing, and ragchewing. You can read about the special meeting here:

Special meeting

You only need ask a PSK31 operator, and some CW operators, what it is like to have an automatic Pactor station suddenly pop up on the frequency in use and completely destroy the QSO.

In case you do not know it, ARRL has officially adopted Winlink 2000 as "their" nationwide messaging system, so Winlink and ARRL can now be considered to be essentially one and the same.

The current Part 97.221 reads as follows:

97.221 Automatically controlled digital station.

(a) This rule section does not apply to an auxiliary station, a beacon station, a repeater station, an earth station, a space station, or a space telecommand station.

(b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on the 28.120-28.189 MHz, 24.925-24.930 MHz, 21.090-21.100 MHz, 18.105- 18.110 MHz, 14.0950-14.0995 MHz, 14.1005-14.112 MHz, 10.140-10.150 MHz, 7.100-7.105 MHz, or 3.585-3.600 MHz segments.

© A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on any other frequency authorized for such emission types provided that:


(1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under local or remote control; and

(2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz.



ARRL has petitioned the FCC to change Part 97.221 as follows:


97.221 Automatically controlled stations transmitting RTTY or data emissions.

"*****

"( c ) A station transmitting a RTTY or data emission may be automatically controlled on any other frequency authorized for such emissions provided that the station is responding to interrogation by a station under local or remote control.

"( 1 ) (Deleted)

"( 2 ) (Deleted)"

What does this mean to you?

It means that Winlink Email robots, already widely hated for randomly destroying CW and PSK31 QSO's with 500 Hz-wide signals, would be allowed to destroy as many as six (6) RTTY QSO's, twenty (20) CW QSO's or the entire PSK31 activity segment of the band with a single wideband Pactor-III signal, killing your chance to complete that rare DX or contest exchange just so the less-then-one-percent of U.S. hams that use Winlink will never have to wait for a clear frequency within the current subbands.

What can you do about this?

You can file a comment on RM-11306 with the FCC by clicking on this link, filling out the comment form, and telling the FCC you do not agree with allowing automatic operations of any kind to operate outside the current subbands:

Here is an example of how to fill out the form: Be sure to type RM-11306 in all caps, and also fill in your state and zip code..




Be sure to fill in the state and zipcode fields and press the Submit button when finished.

Just click here to file a comment: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi


Please help by filing a comment and encouraging every ham you meet on the air to do likewise.

73, Skip KH6TY

 

This posting builds on several threads that have been quietly underway the past few weeks discussing concerns among active and interested hams in the greater Amateur community.

The conversations you will find below have not been revealed in any of the ARRL publications, daily, weekly and monthly, that have gone to press in the time since the group's volunteer and paid leadership asked to make their latest pitch to try to save RM-11306 before several FCC officials in Washington.

Please consider the opinions expressed, form your own views, and let the FCC directly know how you feel by using the helpful comment filing guide Skip has supplied..

It is very obvious that the handful of digital buffs in Newington who hatched this scheme several years ago have learned NOT to again seek input from those who overwhelmingly voted last year that they are opposed. So before the League apologists urge everyone to "write your director," please note that this latest move has already happened, without the support nor consent of those who subscribe to their group.

Thread No. 1

Thread No. 2

Thread No. 3

Thread No. 4

 

Thanks Skip for posting this. Please notice in the proposed rule change that 97.221 (b) (2) is an important part as well.


The section now:

(2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz.


the proposed change:

(2) Deleted

The purpose is to allow the wideband modems to be used in the RTTY/Data subbands too. So not only does this proposal loose the automatic stations, it also allows increased bandwidth that may reach 3kHz. This means where individual PSK31 stations have been hammered by automatic stations in the past, under the change it may hammer more than one QSO at a time.

And remember that in his comments about ARRL RM 11306, one Winlink developer clearly stated that wideband data stations do NOT belong in the same spectrum with keyboard type data applications. Having lost the battle to put these stations in the voice bands, now it (suddenly) is perfectly OK to put them with narrowband data apps?

These people clearly do not have the best interest of Amateurs in mind! Please comment and say "NO!".

 

Sent a reply as shown above. Took less then 5 min. Well worth the time. Even got instant confirmation. #2007321747725. all in less then 5 min.

Steve Wendt
KB9RDS

 

Proof positive the ARRL does not give one d**n about CW. This bunch of misfits hates CW and will stop at nothing to try to push the mode off the airwaves. This is only the latest on a series of attempts this crew will make. The league hates CW, hates CW operators and wishes to rid the airwaves of all CW transmissions. Why else would they try to slip this one onder the table. They are hoping that this latest move will align them more with the new digital buffs and maybe even result in a few more memberships. The league is more than willing to sell out CW, RTTY and PSK 31 in order to get their dream.

 

Done.

In the comments section, I suggest expanding the reason why said opposition is urged, such as the potential for unintentional and/or harmful interference to other Part 97 transmissions, that are monitored in real-time.

 

I also suggest that if you have an ARRL e-mail address, that you list it; this makes it clear that this meeting does not represent the aggregate views of the membership.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

Thanks Skip, Charley, and all for posting this.

Since I learned of this about a week and a half ago, and was convinced the motive was to keep the ex-parte meeting a secret from rank and file hamdom, I wrote Bill Pasternak of AR Newsline.  Bill seemed quite taken by the tactic, and promised a write up in this week's Newsline.  For some reason, it didn't happen.  I'm puzzled as to why not.

Sadly, this tactic by the leadership of the ARRL has done more to harm its credibility amongst its membership than almost anything I can think of.

While its one thing for individuals to disagree with a League position, its entirely a different issue when the League itself sneaks behind its members without so much as a modest mention of the meeting and presentation to the FCC in any League publication or bulletin. And, they know from the opposing comments to RM-11306, that we overwhelmingly disagree with them with respect to wide bandwidth robots.

For what its worth, I think the entire upper echelon in Newington should be fired for this.  The problem is, besides Newsline, this forum and eham, what other means have we to tell the rest of the amateur community about what they've done?

I suspect their motive is again, "we know better the future of amateur radio than the average amateur." So, they go about setting the stage for an all-digital future for us, like it or not.
And, when you think about their 'clients' (with whom they have contract-like MOU's such as the Red Cross, DHS, etc.) they have probably promised them a back-door HF WinLink email bridge, as it were, for use in emergency situations. Perhaps in the interest of obtaining more lucrative grant bucks.

Well, I'll file an ex-parte objection as well. Got to think about it some, though, before I pen it.

73,

 

This is one reason I don't belong to the ARRL.They are out for the smal majority in their office not the majority that is members.I think the ARRL needs to get their heads out of their rear ends later and 73 de Mike KC8FWD

 

Well I just sent another one tonight. I am not sure that the one I sent the other night went through as I never got a confirmation number. I got one tonight '2007321933341 '
Date Received: Mar 21 2007
Docket: RM-11306


73's

 

Thanks Skip for bringing this to our attention.
I filed comments with the commission.  Shame
on the ARRL!

 

ARRL: Anti Radio Relay League...

Do whatever you want, and push your agenda and not that of what reflects your membership.

Should those "robots" pop up onto my frequency, on will come the amplifier and there will be a dit dit dash war to be certain.

Talk about intentional interference!

Too bad ARRL doesn't live up to the rules and regulations about checking a frequency being in use first before transmitting...why should other amateurs be held to such standards?

Sad day indeed.

 

I'll attempt to summarize my understanding of what's been said about this in various threads here on QRZ:

A) 'The ARRL is losing members at the rate of 2% a year and with membership currently at only 23% of the amateur population, they need all the help they can get.'

B) 'Winlink 2000 offers a way to send large amounts of data in the event of another disaster like Katrina, and naturally, the greater the bandwidth allotted to the mode, the more data can be sent. Sending large amounts of data in emergencies is attractive to the agencies ARRL serves. Therefore, if the ARRL can train and field emergency volunteers using Winlink 2000, the ARRL stands to gain credibility and increased financial suport via government Homeland Security grants. Thus, Winlink 2000 and the financial stability of the ARRL go hand-in-hand.'

C) 'We are seeing increased ARRL support for digital modes in general, and blatant cheerleading for Winlink 2000 in particular, which is a proprietary digital mode, because the ARRL has a pecuniary interest in the success of Winlink 2000 and its adoption by ARRL served agencies.'

D) 'Automatically controlled data robots identifying in their own language (not voice or CW) are not compatible with users of other modes!'

E) 'The ARRL's ad-hoc digital committee said the same thing themselves in March, 2003:'

"Digital operation is one of the fastest growing areas in amateur radio today. It embraces all that the younger generation considers important, to include the computer, digital messaging of all kinds, and the Internet."

"In the mid-80's we (at that time I was on the ARRL Digital Committee) tried to get the rules changed to allow bandwidth-related modes on HF, or at least in some sub-bands. Once again, the "old guard" makes a lot of noise. 'That's where I run AMTOR. You're gonna interfere with my RTTY. Hey! I want to operate CW there...', 'CW is the most efficient mode of Amateur communications! Etc...' "

"Because fully-automatic operation presents technical problems on HF that make bandwidth sharing with other modes and uses virtually impossible alternatives should be used if at all possible."

F) 'The ARRL is going against the advice of their own digital committee in recommending these changes!'

.

 

I ,too, took less than 5 minutes to file comments in opposition to this most recent underhanded move by the ARRL. It will not do any good to "contact your Director". The vast majority of them march in lock step with the shots called by HQ. In my filed comments to the FCC I pointed out that the vast majority of amateurs who have filed comments in past, similar, proceedings opposed the ARRL proposals. Up until now the league's proposals in this vein have been downplayed in league controlled media. It appears that this time they were hushed altogether. As for expecting Newsline to cover this...go back and re-read the last year's worth of Newsline reporting. Where do they get much of their material----the ARRL. Where is their loyalty---the ARRL.

The only way the ARRL will get the message is if we, all of us who disagree with the league, hit them in the pocketbook. Wide scale failure to renew membership may...may...may eventually get their attention. It is a cinch that member input and member's desires play little or no role in determining what the league does. I'm a "Life Member" so I can't hurt them economically because I never have to renew. But given the league's track record over the past 5 years I may be one of the few Life Members (and one of the few former Section Managers) to withdraw from membership. They got my money years ago, but maybe it's time they can't count me in their membership numbers. Certainly QST is no longer worth staying in the game for. I am very sorry to see what has happened to a once great organization.

 

This petition, the league's BPL lawsuit against the FCC, and recent petitions filed by the league have prompted the following questions in various forums here on QRZ:

I) 'Is the current direction of the ARRL in accord with the interests of the majority of amateurs?'

II) 'Is the ARRL providing leadership and acting as a good steward for amateur operators or have they become more interested in their survival as a business?'

III) 'Does the ARRL take steps to determine how many members support their petitions before submitting them?'

IV) 'Does the ARRL provide any hard data on a predicted influx of digital users, other than statements like, kids like the internet and messaging?'

V) 'Why is the ARRL proposing to limit bandwidth on 10 and 2 meters after the FCC just denied a petition seeking to limit bandwidth? The FCC denied RM-10740, calling the petition inconsistent with the Commission’s objective of encouraging the experimental aspects of the amateur radio service, and commenting that the Petition also failed to demonstrate that a deviation from the Commission’s longstanding practice of allowing operating flexibility within the amateur service community -- is either warranted or necessary.'

VI) 'When did the ARRL begin calling themselves The National Association for Amateur Radio? Is the tail attempting to wag the dog here?'

VII) 'When people in the league complain about "the Old Guard" are they referring to the 77% of the amateur community who are not members of the league, e.g., you and me?'

ARRL WINS HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT

ARRL DIGITAL COMMITTEE MARCH 2003

Question:

Is there anyone who is authorized to reply for the league who can comment on any or all of the questions being raised here?

.