I agree 100%.
Need a "boiler plate" write up that can intelligently and succinctly state our
concerns.
Much appreciated.
Al
K2AL
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 8, 2016, at 10:51 AM, William Lisk <wglisk@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> I share the concerns of those have participated in this thread. A suggestion:
> Many of us understand the basic problem but are not good at framing the
> issues in the right technical language or giving the FCC what they are asking
> for in their request for comments. Perhaps some among us who feel competent
> in these areas could post a proposed comment on this reflector that could be
> used by others as the basis of a comment filing.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bill/KC2EMH
>
>
>> On 8/8/2016 10:27 AM, Michael Adams wrote:
>> Just to repeat and expand upon something I wrote earlier:
>>
>> The FCC's comments make pretty clear that they accept the arguments for
>> removing the symbol rate limit, and that they think that removing the
>> bandwidth limit on at least some of the HF amateur spectrum is beneficial to
>> experimentation (and, presumably, alleviates the potential for a future
>> petition if/when wider data modes come to pass).
>>
>> However, they left the door open for feedback to impose a bandwidth limit on
>> _part_ of the CW/data subbands....but they also were rather explicit in
>> requesting technical reasons for doing so.
>>
>> Nothing in RM-11708 proposes moving or expanding the automated subbands.
>>
>> In my feedback, I suggested that a 500Hz limit below the automated subbands
>> would be appropriate to reduce interference issues between narrow and wide
>> signals. I'm sure there are others on this reflector who could put together
>> a more technical / eloquent reasoning for that.
>>
>> I opted for 500Hz to accommodate all of the narrow-ish modes I'm aware of
>> that are in use today, and to avoid the potential for conflict from users of
>> those modes. I opted for a "below the automated subbands" demarcation for
>> simplicity.
>>
>> Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with my idea, I would encourage
>> folks who want to submit similar ideas to focus strictly on
>> technical/interference reasoning, and for their ideas to accommodate some
>> space for wideband data.
>>
>> It's clear to me that complaints about Winlink or general fear about
>> wideband data (which is already allowed all the way down to the bottom of
>> the band under Part 97, FWIW) will probably be ignored as out-of-scope if
>> submitted as a reply to the NPRM.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|