RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence

To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence
From: Ron WT7AA <fia@clouddancer.com>
Reply-to: fia@clouddancer.com
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 09:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
SSB is 'designed' to occupy a small bandwidth, yet I can routinely
hear Southern Cross at least 8kHz away from their center freq.  During
RTTY contests, I hear the old 300 baud packet showing up, but never at
any other time.  NTS hasn't been a useful service in decades, and some
new 'improved' and 'better than those old modulations' scheme will not
change that, that information theory says otherwise (and experience
proves) is ignored.  The threat of interference is not to be dismissed
with a unbacked claim of FUD.

But I do say give them a chance to prove themselves, and that only
requires a Special Temporary Authority not a rule change.  That
Authority should go on for a few years, so that all of the 'gotta try
something new this week' ops drop out and we see how few are left and
if they deserve special priviledges that dislodge the majority.


> Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 07:19:39 -0400
> From: Matthew Pitts via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
> 
> A fine example of FUD, since neither the ARRL or FCC are changing
> 97.221 in any way, nor is it likely that any significant increase in
> interference will result with "new" technologies already having a

> means to prevent interference as part of their design.
> 
> Matthew Pitts
> N8OHU 
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

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