We are slowly getting organized. We have been flooded with personal emails and phone calls and appreciate all of the comments and suggestions. We are certainly open for inputs and right now the feeli
Terry, One possible way to get figures on CW, Phone and RTTY usage is to look at DXpedition statistics. ClubLog list totals < https://secure.clublog.org/expeditions.php > but does not break out by mo
Good ideas. What we want do is to provide accurate data as to the usage of the various modes of SSB, CW, RTTY and Packet. So for the white paper that describes the popularity of modes across ham radi
Auto sub band was created to reduce QRM from the PACTOR ect mode so called robots. The only problem was that others would wonder and then complain when QRM'ed. To bad that all "will" not use that sug
Auto sub band was created to reduce QRM from the PACTOR ect mode so called robots. The only problem was that others would wonder and then complain when QRM'ed. To bad that all "will" not use that su
But even in the so called "automatic control" subbands *every* amateur station is required to listen before they transmit. Perhaps RM-11708 should include a requirement that *any* digital station inc
And ID in CW, especially if they use a undocumented code. --Original Message-- From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 5:44 PM To: r
The wording that I saw was: "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." I assume that was
The unspecified code clause is still in place even if RM-11708 is accepted with no modification by the FCC. The ARRL proposal for §97.307(f)(3), as amended, reads: "Only a RTTY or data emission using
As David Sumner and Kai Siwiak are both fond of pointing out there is *no bandwidth limitation* in the current rules. PACTOR 4 is only illegal because it exceeds the 300 baud *symbol* rate limitatio
Chen, That's not so. Pactor-IV is not permitted in the USA *only* because its symbol rate exceeds 300 baud. There is currently no regulatoryBWrestriction for non-FSK digital signaling in the USA. The
My error, I meant baud rate. 73 Chen, W7AY _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
I would be very careful going there. That kind of phenomenon is probably due to either someone having a misconfigured station, using a deprecated mode (e.g. Pactor 1), and/or expecting miracles in th
Hi Michael, Great point. I found a WinLink video on u-Tube where a ham is taking three LOTW Q's and uploading them to the ARRL. I'm not even sure which technology mode he is using but it gives a good
On 3/18/2014 8:34 PM, it was wrote: In part used for something and at a minimum a email could be sent to both stations informing them of intentional interference. Was it intentional interference or c
Has the group been able to put together a bandplan recommendation? I'm at the point in my comments where I am struggling over what to recommend going forward. Once I get past the generalities it gets
I don't know of any "group" proposal but my proposal will be no change for modes less than 500 Hz wide, any modes greater than 500 KHz limited to the bands where automatic control is permitted only o
Mark, Just my opinion, and not in any way complete. Painting with a broad brush, and using 20 m as an example, the following appear to be basics: CW to favor the lower portion of the bands, 14.000 to
Mon Deu! We agree about something - except that D-STAR is not legal below 50 MHz because the protocol (CODEC) is not publicly documented. In addition, its 6 KHz bandwidth is also illegal based on 97