I just received the note below from Ted, N9NB. As Ted says, if you dont agree with him or dont care about this, then please delete the message. Heres a summary of his background: http://www.arrl.org/
The only thing I don't agree with Ted on is giving the stinkers anything above the lower 100kHz. The next shoe to drop will be eliminating 97.221, there will never be enough spectrum for these clowns
Author: Matthew Pitts via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 10:34:13 -0400
Some major flaws that I see in his argument are: 1: Digital voice is classified as "Phone" hence not permitted in the RTTY/data segment to begin with; that won't change even if the FCC bandwidth prop
You're so far off base that you aren't even on the ball field. US licensees: 800,000 vs. Canadian licensees <70,000. At that ratio, giving each Canadian licensee 6 KHz is equivalent to giving each Am
Yup, and the Canadians got a bit upset over the proposed ARRL band plan because they use or RTTY/Data sub band for SSB to get away from US stations. The other problem is that Matthew failed to recogn
Matthew, it's happening now with the 97.221(c) stations. What makes you think the wide band stuff will behave any better? The big problem is no one, not the FCC or the ARRL, is watching or responding
Author: Matthew Pitts via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 06:49:13 -0400
Ron, How often are hams in the RTTY/data segment interfered with by 6 kHz bandwidth signals that originate from hams now? If the answer is they haven't been, you have your answer about the question.
How often are hams in the RTTY/data segment interfered with by 6 kHz While it wasn't 6 KHz ... just this morning a PACTOR station fired up right in the middle of the WSPR, JT-65 and JT-9 activity on
Matthew, try to stick to the subject. Stations operating under 97.221(c) regularly blast anything in their way and if the P3 stations would stay where they belong it would help. No one said anything
Author: Matthew Pitts via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:45:16 -0400
Ron, Ted has mentioned wide bandwidth voice modes, and so did you in a message to another list, which is why I asked the question I did. The point I am trying to to make is that these things would al
Matthew, the reason you don't see wide band digi voice in the sub band is simple. In the case of System Fusion, 12.5kHz, the baud rate is 9600 and not legal under current rules but.....you knew that
Author: Matthew Pitts via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 17:18:44 -0400
Ron, Matthew Pitts N8OHU _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
Sorry forgot to add this "And, for what it's worth, where else are hams using peer to peer digital (Pactor 3 and Winmor 1600) supposed to operate?" How much p2p P3 or Winmor 1600 is actually used for
Matthew, it has a purely data mode that doesn't have a voice component and just because there's zero interest now doesn't mean some idiot won't decide to try it. I think we're pretty much done here,
Author: Matthew Pitts via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:08:57 -0400
Ron, Yeah, I guess you're right; it's too bad folks have to feel threatened by things that won't happen to realize that maybe their version of events isn't the whole story. Sadly, it's those folks th
use that mode with anything other than one specific accessory and if memory serves, the FT-991 doesn't even support it, period. Yeah, I guess you're right; it's too bad folks have to feel threatened
Author: Matthew Pitts via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 07:21:25 -0400
Dave, Claims of potential increases in QRM, nothing more. And without at least a year long test period where Pactor 4 and only that would be allowed, there is no way to prove to anyone on this and ot
Claims of potential increases in QRM, nothing more. And without at Matthew, You are, as usual, full of it. The basis of potential increases in QRM are well founded based on the automatic station int
I and other digital mode operations have for years been QRM'd by automatic stations without busy frequency detectors, and you've been presented with hard evidence in the form of screen shots demonstr
I think that part of the discrepancy of opinion when it comes to the pros and cons of the NPRM is a difference in outlooks. Setting aside the not-insignificant problem of Winlink operators carelessly