whats any of this got to do with LOTW, as mentioned in the Subject ?!?!?!
On 7/26/2013 4:15:56 PM, Kok Chen (chen@mac.com) wrote:
On Jul 26, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Peter Laws wrote:
> We
shouldn't get sidetracked, though. The issue at hand is excessive
> bandwidth in the narrow-band portions of the FCC allocations. We need
> to fix the automatic station stuff and we need to fix the proprietary
> encoding problem (D-STAR, PACTOR, etc), but this isn't
the time.
Let me pose a question for the community.
Lets say the automatic stations are bound by enforceable rules that they
cannot transmit over an on-going QSO, and will also not respond to other
modes (even my puny RTTY signal) with their idiotic bzzzzt when my signal
is not meant for them.
Is there still an objection over having wideband modes among narrow band
modes?
Each item (wideband, ALE, etc) when taken alone are not objectionable to
me (but that's just me). But together, it just doesn't work for me.
If no rules are enforceable, then I cannot but object to wide band signals
among narrow band signals. It is good for neither of the users of narrow
band modes nor the wideband modes (as Henning Harmuth pointed out eons
ago).
A human cannot copy Morse over 2.8 kHz of wideband garbage, and you
won't be abl
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|