RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted

To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
From: Jim W7RY <w7ry@centurytel.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:35:10 -0800
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
I think you need to double check a few things here... Or can I fire up the old wide band generator on 160 meters and cover the entire band at once?


73
Jim W7RY


On 2/26/2014 11:08 AM, Kai wrote:
Don,
This may help. Here are a couple of FAQ's they did not ask, here they are with my answers.

"What is the current limitation on bandwidth of digital emission (except two-tone RTTY) at MF and HF?"
The answer is:
What is permitted today with no changes in the regs, is digital signals (except two-tone RTTY) with the following bandwidths:
160m - 200 kHz BW
 80 m  - 100 kHzBW
60m - 2.8 kHzBW [confined to the center of the channels, including two tone RTTY]
 40 m - 125 kHzBW
 30 m - 50 kHzBW
 20 m - 150 kHzBW
 17 m - 42 kHzBW
 15 m - 200 kHzBW
 12 m - 40 kHzBW
 10 m - 300 kHzBW

The above are slightly lower for non-Extra class licensees in some bands.

"What is the bandwidth limitation on two-tone RTTY today?"
All MF and HF bands: 1.5 kHz, except 60 m channels where 2.8 kHz is permitted for all including RTTY.

"What is the data bandwidth limitation asked for in RM-11802?"
All MF and HF bands, all digital data emissions, including RTTY, limited to 2.8 kHz.

In the MF and HF phone bands there are likewise no statutory BW limitations, but the widest that I know off is D-Star digital voice which occupies about 6 kHz, and good 'ole AM - also 6 kHz.

That's it. That's all there is.

73
Kai, KE4PT


On 2/26/2014 12:47 PM, Don AA5AU 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>