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
|