RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] How did the RM-11708 pins come across?

To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] How did the RM-11708 pins come across?
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 18:13:24 -0400
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>

On 2014-05-20 5:07 PM, Mark wrote:
I agree based on the short chat I had with k1zz (wearing my no
rm-11708 button of course). His position seems to be some un named
others, with a theoretical modulation scheme using multiple carriers
each at 300 baud, were positioned to descend on the ham bands and
that rm-11708 is needed to head that off.

That is K1ZZ doing his job as shill for Directors Woolweaver and Brodson
(the two who stampeded the ARRL Board of Directors into proposing
RM-11708).  K1ZZ needs a reason to justify RM-11708 and avoid admitting
it is simply a way to eliminate the 300 symbol per second limit to
allow PACTOR 4 (at 1800 bud) and other SSB bandwidth serial tone modes
to run roughshod over more than a dozen RTTY, PSK31, and JT- signals at
a time.  Note: PACTOR 4 will have almost twice as much average power as
PACTOR 3 in the same bandwidth and will result in significantly more QRM.

If there was any truth to K1ZZ's argument and there was a real threat
from this theoretical 300 baud multiple carrier mode, RM-11708 would
have simply sought to imposed a 2.4 KHz limit (to accommodate current
PACTOR 3 activity) on data emissions and *NOT* sought to remove the 300
symbol per second (baud) data rate limit.  One need only study what was
requested to see through the fiction.

Please see www.savertty.com, file comments with the FCC in opposition
to RM-11708 and urge your friends to do the same.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2014-05-20 5:07 PM, Mark wrote:
I agree based on the short chat I had with k1zz (wearing my no rm-11708 button 
of course).
His position seems to be some un named others, with a theoretical modulation 
scheme
using multiple carriers each at 300 baud, were positioned to descend on the ham 
bands
and that rm-11708 is needed to head that off.  Now, If the the very real, and 
existing
pactor IV was to come through the door opened by Rm-11708, well that could be 
handled
by band plans after the fact.

Please continue to file comments on the FCC site and continue to pressure the 
arrl.
Those of us being requested to donate to the ARRL Spectrum Defense Fund have
another opportunity to comment against this 'self inflicted' source of 
interference.

Mark. N2QT

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

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