RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] Fwd: RE: RM-11708 Outside US

To: "Dick Flanagan" <dick@k7vc.com>, "RTTY Reflector" <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Fwd: RE: RM-11708 Outside US
From: "Ron Kolarik" <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:51:33 -0500
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
Sumner is still up to the same old games that played out before. The only thing
that has changed is the date on these links
http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6518309211

Oh, as far as "railroading" the RM I don't know what else to call it if hams 
had no
input in the process and didn't see the language until AFTER it went to the FCC.

ROn
K0IDT

----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Flanagan" <dick@k7vc.com>
To: "RTTY Reflector" <rtty@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Fwd: RE: RM-11708 Outside US


[Forwarded with permission]

On 2014-04-23 10:51 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
Dick, I don't consider "that will be the end of amateur radio" to be a technical argument. How many times have we heard that over the years?

It's not a criticism of anyone to say that they may not understand the present Part 97 rules governing HF data emissions unless they won't accept explanations. The rules were developed over a 60-year period and are rather arcane. Many people don't seem to realize that data modes with bandwidths that exceed 500 Hz have been in legal use for more than a decade. In 2008 the FCC denied RM-11392, a petition by N5RFX to limit necessary bandwidth to 1.5 kHz and 2.4 kHz, respectively, as a substitute for the 300 and 1200 baud limits. A 1.5 kHz limit would have prohibited Pactor-III among others but the FCC said: "...we do not believe that changing the rules to prohibit a communications technology currently in use is in the public interest."

I respectfully disagree with the characterization of "railroading." The symbol rate issue and the rationale for 2.8 kHz bandwidth was explained in the September 2013 QST editorial, which generated very little comment at the time. The ARRL Executive Committee did not authorize the filing of the petition until more than a month later. The proposed rule changes were deliberately limited to what was required to accomplish a narrow objective of permitting more efficient use of the bandwidth that was already being used for data communications, while at the same capping the bandwidth so that future developments would not be based on wider bandwidths.

73,
Dave Sumner, K1ZZ
ting.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>