>>>AA6YQ comments below
-----Original Message-----
From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com]On
Behalf Of W0MU Mike Fatchett
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:11 AM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] mode allocations
I am unclear how your comments apply to why the USA has far more restrictive
rules. Bad apples don't care about the rules or laws.
>>>When a RTTY DX station operating a pileup comes back to W0MU, there is no
FCC regulation that precludes operators in that pileup from flocking to your
frequency and continuously sending their callsigns. That's horrible
operating practice that anyone with the least modicum of "gentlemanly
amateur spirit" would avoid like the plague, and yet hundreds of ops were
doing just that last weekend. Clearly we as a community can't be trusted to
gentleman-type agreements, as you suggested in your initial poist.
>>>As for the presence of SSB sub-bands your your inability to work RTTY
where-ever you like, the ARRL some years back proposed to replace the
current "allocation by mode" scheme with an "allocation by bandwidth"
scheme. This would have been disastrous, in part because it would have
allowed unattended stations without busy frequency detectors to operate
anywhere within their bandwidth allocation, greatly increasing the QRM from
such stations. The fact that hams operate unattended stations without busy
frequency detectors today is another testament to the need for regulation.
>>>As to why we're limited to 200 watts on 30m, I don't know, but I very
much doubt that this regulation was instituted by a bored Federal bureacrat.
Minimizing interference with another service is the more likely explanation.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|