Email robots on HF bands

Tom Azlin, N4ZPT n4zpt at
Sat Mar 24 21:57:27 CDT 2007

Hi Iain,

I've exchanged email with Skip in the past. I tend to agree with him.

Far as I am concerned both automatic and semi-automatic systems need to
be sequestered in very small sections of the bands as neither are
responsible operators. And they do not even know how to back off, they
just hammer away.

And what happened to the modems that could detect the presence of other
activity?  I have been QRM'd many times by a person calling a semiauto
station that when I looked it up was not even supposed to be on the
frequency. And I have been QRM'd when the stations switched from Pactor
II to Pactor II and suddenly wiped out the entire 20 meter area where a
dozen psk31 QSOs were underway.  And these program does not know how to
listen and say "sorry OM" when I say the frequency is in use. And very
few actually ID when they try to contact the semi-auto station.  Only
one I saw doing that was a NTS station so I was able to send in an
interference report to the FCC on that one.

Nice hot button issue! I listen to the radio and watch the waterfall
before transmitting.   I am convinced the Pactor stations do not.

73, Tom n4zpt.

Iain McFadyen wrote:
> FYI. I haven't vetted this, and do not have any opinion on it yet, but I
> wanted to pass this on for the benefit of the club members.  
> ===================================================
> Subject: [RTTY] The Email Robots are coming to RTTY!
> ARRL is petitioning the FCC to allow Email Robots to take over
> the HF bands under 10m.
> You can read about the special meeting with the FCC here:
> I urge all of you not to be complacent about this matter!
> As an invited member of the original ARRL committee from which the
> "bandwidth petition" sprang, I saw early on that the real intent of the
> committee, chaired by the originator of Winlink, was to turn
> control of the HF bands over to Winlink Email robots, and that "segmentation
> by bandwidth" was merely a guise for doing this. I even felt it necessary to
> issue a dissenting recommendation, which you may read here:
> Now the ARRL is trying again, and in so doing, divulging the true purpose
> behind their original "bandwidth petition", by taking advantage
> of the fact
> that CW has been dropped as a requirement, basically leaving only RTTY and
> Data as important modes in the eyes of the ARRL. You may notice
> the complete absence of CW as a mode in the table of HF modes attached to the
> ARRL's Ex-parte attempted modification to RM-11306, which may or may not
> actually be allowed, since it basically scraps the concept of segmentation by
> bandwidth and preserves segmentation by mode for all bands under 10m. I
> don't see how the FCC can accept this magnitude of change to RM-11306
> without requiring a totally new petition and comment period.
> However, just in case they do, I have put together a simple explanation of
> how to file a comment and I strongly urge each one of you to file
> a comment NOW if you value your ability to enjoy RTTY and CW in the future.
> Please do not be complacent and assume everything will be OK! Just take a
> couple of minutes to file a comment. Here is a sample form to follow:
> A flood of comments DOES influence the FCC. It worked to keep the
> robots off the phone bands, so now we must again work to keep them from
> taking over the RTTY and CW activity areas.
> If you want to enjoy RTTY contesting and DXing in the future,
> please help by simply clicking here:
> and commenting NOW!
> 73, Skip KH6TY
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Get your own web address.  
> Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
> _______________________________________________
> Tacos mailing list
> Tacos at

More information about the Tacos mailing list