No Paul.
Let me strongly disagree with you, even if what you wrote is something
that could be written under "good common sense".
Unfortunately not common nor good are under metrics shared, so widely,
in the same way by anyone of us.
Let the wide open signals get into and you will see anything, whatever,
in any place of those. It's just a question of time. Some rules are
needed well in place to prevent spreading of common sense measured with
"variable metrics". Did you trust that anybody would take care of any
speed limit without any enforcement?
Don't aspect that anyone would respect the others without a clever and
efficiently enforced rule.
Look at what is happening with JT65, PSK and ROS and all other so called
digital modes all over the RTTY sub bands. What started as a gentleman
agreement is by now a perfect right to do anything onto theirs so
politely assigned segments. I know that I am mixing FCC rules and
international regions band plans but that is it. I am simply ashamed for
any and each DX expedition that use 18.100 MHz for the split TX QRG, PSK
and JT signal continue to go over and over jamming the DX station
responding to the the other half of the world. There is no way to come
back for some hours, no way to understand others.
I'd never been on your side of the pond, but from this side any signals
would arrive quite the same. There are no walls that work forever to
segregate RF signal around US. Then it will also became more politic and
IARU will shortly fire out just another band plan. Similar to the
criminal 50MHz band plan we have here now, RTTY is well inside a sub
band for FM signals at 50.600 Hz. I have my school time
telecommunications manuals on fire. It's unbelievable. (here we have
different chunks on 50MHz, I is only 50-51 for example)
Compromises are the rules by now, but compromises have not to clash so
badly with the laws of physics. As anyone could understand as cars crash
may happen. Driving and spitting one compromise over another it's not a
good politic, it's just a swimming exercise. Giving anything to anyone
is how compromises are made. Best practices are on books, life is
different. Anyway, anybody could write another book of best practices,
why not.
Sorry to disagree Paul. Believe me I would have preferred a lot to be
agreeing with you.
BTW, that BoD ARRL body it's the same that denied the existence of RTTY
by itself for the DXCC?
Those Borg of the BoD that wrote: resistance is futile, just Digital is
enough.
But, anyway tell me if I could sign somewhere to avoid this mischief.
Hope that my poor English wouldn't be too hard to be read.
73 de iw1ayd Salvo
PS that's show me as not only here we have those so comprehensive peoples.
On 27/07/2013 18:00, rtty-request@contesting.com wrote:
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 22:39:49 -0400
From: Paul Stoetzer<n8hm@arrl.net>
To:rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital
BW
Message-ID:<51F332F5.10706@arrl.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
My opinion is that we should have the flexibility to do whatever we can
do within a 2.8 kHz bandwidth (including multiple carrier modes, spread
spectrum, etc.). I think voluntary band plans is good enough. Nobody is
going to transmit a 2.8 kHz wide digital signal at 14.025 MHz.
There are many other countries that regulate on bandwidth and generally
let hams do whatever they want in a normal SSB channel width. We don't
see chaos from that!
73,
Paul, N8HM
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|