Okay, some questions both on and off list and a few new people arriving to the party. I'm no expert and maybe a someone else could chime in with suggestions. First read the RM and research anything y
Funny, RM-11306 is one that I filed a comment on, also. I kept a record on my hard drive. Did we win against the ARRL that time? :-) 73 Chen, W7AY _______________________________________________ RTTY
I recall from the past somebody prepared a very good argument for the FCC to turn down a request and then posted it and people could sign on and there name and call would be added to the comments. If
I've now studied the ARRL proposal and take the position that symbol rate language is indeed unnecessarily restrictive for modern advances in the state of the amateur radio arts. So most of the ARRL
PACTOR III is *NOT* currently permitted under the rules. Its use has been *overlooked* by enforcement organizations as it *absolutely* can not be justified under the *dual standard* in 97.307(f)(3)
It has been pointed out before that those that complain the loudest and longest cant even copy pactor. Using here say for their facts. I have never seen a lot of the stuff they post about and I moved
That is not true Joe... please don't make that mistake in your FCC filing. At all SL levels, Pactor III's symbol rate is fixed at 100 baud (yes, not even close to 300 baud). (Don't confuse Symbol Rat
If it is 2.4 KHz wide, it can not be legal ... how can one square 2.4 KHz occupied bandwidth with a rule that states a combined criteria of 1000 Hz and 300 baud which works our to 1500 Hz? This is *e
Chen I finally found non-ARRL info about PACTOR-III. The manufacturer claims an occupied BW of 2.2 kHz not 2.4 kHz as I used in my argument before. So where I used '2.4 kHz' before I now put '2.2kHz'
Joe, it looks like you are supporting what the ARRL has been saying about Symbol Rates :-). By adding more tones (thus more bits per symbol) you can make the bandwidth as wide as you want, even if th
1000 Hz shift and 300 baud symbol rate (old rules) will occupy no less than about 1300 Hz bandwidth. You realize that, don't you? By judicious waveshaping, we can probably get down to 1200 Hz bandwid
Hi Joe, It squares this way. PACTOR uses multiple tones, but not tone shifting, so shift is zero. PACTOR baud rate is around 100 Hz, so it is well below the 300 Hz max, so legal. The key is that PACT
Hah, didn't I tell you that SCS claims it is 2K20J2D? :-) :-) 2K20. You are probably referring to this manuscript perhaps? http://ecjones.org/PT-III.pdf Other than Pactor III, there is another number
Joe Let's be careful about associating PACTOR with "inefficient modes". My VERY PRELIMIARY assessment is that PACTOR-III in its lowest data rate of about 76 user bps may outperform "Steam-RTTY" by as
A stronger argument is that no increase in bandwidth should be permitted until the issue of QRM from automatic stations has been resolved. Though WinMor servers include busy frequency detectors, WinL
Yes, I realize that but 1300 Hz is still only about 60% of the bandwidth claimed for PACTOR III and less than the bandwidth of WINMOR 1600. 500 Hz does not mesh with the maximums *implied by* the cu
I still believe our best hope is to show the Commission that PACTOR III and WINMOR 1600 are not consistent with the clear intent of the Commission to maintain "traditional radioteleprinter bandwidth
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) REPLY: How about Diesel RTTY? Or Turbo RTTY? Or Ion-Propulsion RTTY as used by NASA? Let's stay up to date, folks. :-) 73, Bill W6WRT ______________________________
I agree. But we need to settle on what "increase" means. What is the baseline of the increase? If you use 1000 Hz FSK shift at 300 baud, that comes up to a bandwidth around 1250 Hz (I guess you can u
Joe, I still don't think that works. The FCC has always allowed 850 Hz shift at 45.45 baud from the moment hams were first permitted to use FSK. It was initially the *only* thing allowed, and it was