[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: Re: [CTDXCC] Why everyone and anyone who likes/wan

To: reflector cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: Re: [CTDXCC] Why everyone and anyone who likes/wants CW and RTTY needs to know
From: Michael Adams <mda@n1en.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 16:03:10 +0000
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I'm not an expert, but here's my $0.02 worth:

In the very short term, RM-11708 might actually improve matters.   Existing 
Winlink traffic will partially shift to higher-speed Pactor 4, and less on-air 
time will be required to move the same amount of traffic.

However, as that happens, there's the risk that demand for Winlink (or other 
automated services) will increase to reflect the additional capabilities and 
capacity.  That demand could offset the reduced on-air time.  Accordingly, I 
think there's a decent chance that any initial improvement could be short-lived.

Looking further out, and considering how SDR technology is advancing, and how 
Emcom type communications needs are becoming increasingly data-intense, I also 
think there's a pretty good chance some folks will want to explore that 
intersection of technology and demand if/when the speed limit is lifted.  When 
that will happen and how much spectrum / which parts of the bands will be 
affected (absent regulation) is kind of difficult to predict.

If the recent NPRM advanced in its current state, it probably wouldn't be the 
end of the world.  But I suspect that providing a bit of a regulatory nudge 
today to keep wide and narrow signals separated would be one way to ensure 
maximum fun on the bottoms of the bands.

Michael / N1EN


Forwarded with permission of Ted as he does a much better job of putting
ink to ether than I do.

I've commented against RM-11708.

I'm curious what the contest community thinks as this will have an
impact on the cw/rtty sub bands?

Rich - N5ZC

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>