I have an even simpler analogy. If mixing wide and narrow modes is "OK",
then why are we no longer allowed to transmit RTTY above 3.6MHz? QED. -
jeff wk6i
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Ed Muns <ed@w0yk.com> wrote:
> I agree that bandwidth segmentation is the crux of RM-11708--retaining
> sub-bands where <500 Hz signals are protected from the QRM of
> wide-bandwidth
> signals.
>
> Unfortunately, we can't escape some techno-babble because the proponents of
> RM-11708 are theoretically correct that there is no bandwidth limit in the
> CW, RTTY and data only sub-bands. Refuting this draws us into the
> technical
> debate to show that wide-bandwidth signals are effectively impractical with
> the current symbol rate limit.
>
> However, the mental model described below is the essence of the issue with
> RM-11708 once all the technical sparring is stripped away. The take-away
> is
> that our networks of traffic pathways (from hiking trails and sidewalks to
> highways and race tracks) are shared among many incompatible kinds of
> transportation. Sometimes the sharing is spatial such as sidewalks vs.
> streets. Sometimes the sharing is temporal such as when normal roads are
> temporarily closed for a footrace. The key point is that there are
> mechanisms for sharing. RM-11708 seeks to eliminate the notion of sharing
> by letting wide-bandwidth signals operate anywhere on the HF bands.
>
> Ed W0YK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe Subich,
> W4TV
> Sent: 20 April, 2014 11:55
> To: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FCC comments will close soon
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
--
Jeff Stai ~ wk6i.jeff@gmail.com
Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/
Facebook ~ http://www.facebook.com/twistedoak
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|