Consider RM-11708 from a different point of view - forget the technical
mumbo-jumbo and look at if from a practical point of view ...
Data rate (speed) is not the sine qua non of communications any more
than speed is the only consideration in transportation. If it were,
we would all be driving Formula One, Indy Car or NASCAR Sprint Cup
cars at 200+ miles an hour to go to the corner grocery for a gallon
of milk and a dozen eggs.
Instead, prudent planning and regulation recognizes that different
speeds (bandwidth) are appropriate in different circumstances and
segregates those speeds to different places - highways (~70 MPH),
general roadways (~50 MPH), school and residential zones (~20 - 35
MPH). Enlightened planning even sets aside special bicycle lanes,
hiking/jogging paths and, in some communities, slow speed vehicle
("golf cart") paths and/or equestrian trails on which automobiles,
motorcycles and other motorized vehicles are not permitted.
Consider the traditional "CW and RTTY bands" the amateur equivalent of
the hiking, jogging, equestrian and golf cart trails. They are there
to protect the older, slower modes from being run over by the Formula
One and Sprint cars ... they serve to permit training in, and use of,
modes that are generally no longer used anywhere else in modern
communications. They represent the true "international park" nature of
amateur radio.
Permitting wideband, high speed, high spectral power density data modes
in the traditional narrow band preserve is like putting race cars onto
Churchill Downs in the middle of the Kentucky Derby - it would kill all
the horses/jockeys and mean the end of horse racing! Allowing 2.8 KHz
data modes in the traditional CW & RTTY bands will surely mean the end
of narrow band modes - perhaps not in a day, a week or a month but
certainly over a few years.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 4/20/2014 10:03 AM, Terry wrote:
Please everyone. It's very important that CW, RTTY and even SSB users
submit a comment AGAINST RM-11708 today. We a told that the FCC will
probably close comments on Monday. You do not have to be technical and a
simple "I am AGAINST RM-11708" is fine. The filling process only takes 5
minutes. A sample PDF file that takes you thru the simple "Express" filing
steps on the FCC web site can be found at:
http://64.128.19.154/RM11708.pdf
Please forward this to other reflectors and hams. We need to get the word
out!
If you want to get a technical feel about why RM-11708 is wrong, take a look
at the filings below. The comments on record by Dan, W5DNT very clearly
state the issues. Other filings are more technical in nature but are right
on target as to why RM-11708 is BAD for amateur radio and should NOT be
approved.
W5DNT http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521098147
N9NB http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521095878
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521095484
K2YG http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view;id=7521098630
K0SM http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520963762
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521064873
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521065139
W4TV http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017583105
AB5K http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521095721
Terry AB5K
_______________________________________________
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
|