RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

To: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
From: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 12:07:34 -0800
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
On Nov 23, 2013, at 5:49 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> However, operators of such systems claim they are not automatically
> controlled (they are "controlled" by the interrogating station) and
> thus not subject to 97.221 - including the bandwidth limitation.

They are getting away by claiming that the control operator of the link is that 
guy in his sailboat and therefore they are not operating under 97.221?

If you are right, then the protection of 97.221(b) is completely voided (i.e., 
that it is not automatic, since there is a control op).

I will include in my comments, that if the Commission decides to allow ARRLs 
bandwidth request (that 2.8 kHz nonsense), that the Commission needs to 
reaffirm that RMS servers are operating under rule 97.221(b), to keep the 
little guys protected.

Really, technically, to call that sailor a control op is stretching it.  I know 
that I have made RTTY transmissions and a Bzzzzt comes back at me -- so, by 
these guys claims, I am now the control op of that Bzzzzt signal?  Give me a 
break!

73
Chen, W7AY


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

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