RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted

To: RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
From: Al Kozakiewicz <akozak@hourglass.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:30:02 -0500
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
Michael makes an excellent point.

Content, modulation mode and bandwidth are intertwined when it comes to analog 
signals.  With digital, all transmissions are syntactically identical, 
differering only in the application of the content.  Whether a series of random 
numbers, voice, email, a digitized recording of Jonny B. Goode - it doesn't 
matter with digital encoding as all content looks the same in the frequency 
domain.

Al
AB2ZY

________________________________________
From: RTTY [rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Michael Clarson 
[wv2zow@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:11 PM
To: Don AA5AU
Cc: RTTY
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted

If its applicable, yet beyond the scope of their petition, than they should
withdraw their petition and resubmit. Their petition wants to replace one
outmoded restriction (symbol rate) yet keep the also outmoded distinction
between data sent for voice or image being somehow different than data used
for text. In today's world, if its digital, its data. Of course, the FAQs
include no mention of the various PACTOR modes, which allow file transfers.
Suppose, using PACTOR I send a JPG file? Is that not image? An audio file
of a voice recording. Is that not digital voice? --Mike, WV2ZOW


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Don AA5AU <aa5au@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> I don't understand this one:
>
>         * Shouldn't 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth data emissions be restricted
> to the band segments where phone and image communications are permitted?-
> While some commenters have argued for that, it is far beyond the scope of
> the ARRL petition. It would require a complete reordering of the regulatory
> scheme for the HF bands which would be controversial, to say the least.
>
> I don't understand the part about having to completely reorder the
> regulatory scheme. That sounds like a bunch of malarkey.
>
> And are they trying to say the current proposal is not already
> controversial enough?
>
> Don AA5AU
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Ron Kolarik <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>
> >To: RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:02 AM
> >Subject: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
> >
> >
> >The ARRL FAQ is up
> >http://www.arrl.org/rm-11708-faq
> >I haven't had time to go through it yet.
> >
> >Ron
> >K0IDT
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
_______________________________________________
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>