RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

To: "Dave AA6YQ" <aa6yq@ambersoft.com>, "RTTY" <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
From: "Ron Kolarik" <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 20:19:35 -0600
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
Dave that looks like more lawyer type weasel words. It says it does not
change the status of AUTOMATICALLY controlled stations. Look at Sec. IV where
the remotely controlled stations are permitted 2.8khz bw. I don't know how
many fully automatic stations are left on the air except for a few packet
operations, just another slightly misleading part of this monstrosity.

Ron
K0IDT


----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave AA6YQ" <aa6yq@ambersoft.com>
To: <rtty@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users


Section II.8 of

<http://www.arrl.org/files/media/News/Petition%20for%20Rule%20Making%20AS-FILED%2011%2015%202013.pdf>

restates the 500 hertz bandwidth limit on automatically controlled stations
operating in the HF subbands specified by 97.221.
Footnote 11 says "there is no proposal herein to change the nominal bandwidth
limitation for automatically controlled stations
transmitting data emissions".

Thus the ARRL's proposal would if adopted not result in any expansion in either 
the
bandwidth or HF spectrum available to
automatically controlled stations.

Has anyone reached a different conclusion?

      73,

             Dave, AA6YQ


_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>