I am leery of trying to argue against RM-11708 or for bandwidth limits using
the statements like "Pactor ops step on RTTY ops".
Subject to the CW/Data vs Phone/Image divide, I'm sure that for any two given
modes examples can be found where someone can say "X op stepped on Y QSO".
That kind of headache is already addressed in Part 97, under the "good amateur
practice" provisions and the limits on harmful interference.
To have a chance at success, someone arguing for imposing some kind of
bandwidth limit on US ops on part of the band needs to focus on the technical
issues that make it desirable to segregate narrow from wide modes....and even
then, such arguments are exposed to a rebuttal of "...but other countries seem
to get by without such hard restrictions."
Arguments against the use of Pactor haven't gone anywhere with the FCC.
Considering the focus of the NPRM, perhaps contesters considering responding
ought to think about that day in the future when a group of hams start building
amateur OTH radar systems for the challenge of chasing DXCC with such a mode.
Does Part 97 (as proposed to be amended) allow for a "fair" sandbox in that
future...and if not, what changes should be made and why?
(I'm only using OTH Radar as an example. I'm sure there are other potential
ultra-wide modes that would serve as good alternative examples.)
--
Michael Adams | mda@n1en.org
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
AC0C
Sent: Tuesday, 23 August, 2016 23:08
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future
If you have not had a QSO ruined by Pactor automatic data station or a caller,
then you have not spent much time running RTTY.
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|