The CURRENT regs already have that "unspecified code" language in
97.307. The ARRL proposal does not have a "drafting error".
That is *incorrect*. 97.307(f)(3) currently says:
(3) Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed
in §97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not
exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift
between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz.
ARRL would change that to:
(23) A RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in
§97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. A RTTY, data or multiplexed
emission using an unspecified digital code under the limitations listed
in §97.309(b) of this part also may be transmitted
The ARRL is adding unspecified digital codes *not currently authorized*
in 97.307(f)(3). *Read Part 97 and ARRL's Petition*.
As a point of fact *unspecified* digital codes are not permitted at
MF/HF - sections 97.307(f)(3) and 97.307(f)(4) do not authorize them
but sections 97.307(f)(5), 97.307(f)(6), and 97.307(f)(7) *authorize*
"unspecified digital codes" at VHF/UHF/microwave.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 11/26/2013 4:53 PM, Kai wrote:
Ron,
Hold on a sec... Your Director got it badly wrong and is doing a
serious disservice by guessing. The CURRENT regs already have that
"unspecified code" language in 97.307. The ARRL proposal does not have
a "drafting error".
Your Director really needs to know what actually is in the present regs
and how it plays with the ARRL proposal, rather than guessing. Read the
current regs, then see the ARRL Appendix for what they actually propose
to change. It does make sense, the ARRL Appendix is correctly worded.
I, for one, agree with the ARRL proposal, except that I'm still not sure
about the 2800 Hz BW figure. Maybe it's ok, maybe it's too wide. But, so
far, I can find no supportable cite-able evidence (not speculation or
anecdote) that 2800 Hz would cause harm to current users.
Respectfully
Kai, KE4PT
On 11/26/2013 3:49 PM, Ron Kolarik wrote:
I'm having another bad day and way behind on things, I'll get caught up
later but thought the group should know the respose I got from my
division
directror. I sent him some references to the IARU bandwidth limits and
also
asked about the language added/deleted in 97.307(f)(3)(4). It seems he
wasn't aware of it and said that hq told him it was a "drafting
error" with the
"unspecified digital codes" at HF language and it will be addressed in
a corrected appendix. Guys you really need to hit your directors with
this and
maybe a few other points to find out exactly what they either don't
know or
what was kept from them. This stinks more every day.
Ron
K0IDT
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|