RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] ARRL board of Directors meeting this week

To: "'rtty-contesting.com'" <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL board of Directors meeting this week
From: "Don Hill AA5AU" <aa5au@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:22:39 -0600
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
I disagree. I believe the only way to fix this is to have the ARRL withdraw it 
so it can be discussed, negotiated and an appropriate
petition presented back to the FCC. Suggestions such as yours about authorizing 
2.8 kHz only for the automated subbands and above
would be something that might be negotiable. But the ARRL does not want to 
negotiate. That's apparent by their methodology here.

Don AA5AU

-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Michael Adams
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 5:21 PM
To: rtty-contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL board of Directors meeting this week

I've kept my mouth shut because I'm a fairly new subscriber to the list, and my 
own views on the subject probably wouldn't be
particularly popular here....but I've never been that successful at 
self-censorship.  So, here's my $0.02 worth.

Something that you might want to consider, even though it's late in the 
game.... if the League were on the level about wanting to
remove the symbol rate limitation (without giving license to spectrum-consuming 
attempts at HF broadband) while otherwise
maintaining the status quo, perhaps they would be agreeable to a tweak to the 
proposal:

In my comments to the FCC, I suggested that it would be less disruptive to 
authorize 2.8kHz ONLY for the automated subbands and
above.  Below the Pactor playgrounds, it would be reasonable and somewhat in 
keeping with current practices to set the bandwidth
limit at 500Hz.  

(A narrower constraint might be appreciated in the usually CW-only segments of 
the bands, but I figured a simple counterproposal had
a better chance of success.)

That, of course, does nothing to resolve concerns about the non-open-source 
nature of Pactor 2+, many Winlink users'  apparent
inability to listen before transmitting, the limited spectrum available for 
non-CW operations on 30m, or our apparent inability to
adapt among ourselves as circumstances evolve.   However, given the League's 
stance, the write-in campaign from Winlink users, and
the FCC's apparent receptiveness to the proposal (they did, after all, invite 
someone to propose a new rule in their report to
Congress a bit over a year ago, if you read between the lines)... the ship has 
not only sailed, but it's probably out past the
breakwater now.

Efforts at this point might be better spent on trying to get a course 
correction, rather than trying to reel the ship all the way
back to the dock.

73

-- 
Michael / N1EN


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

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

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