> And this would be bad ... why? Automatic == bad, IMHO, whether
> it's Pactor or RTTY or Morse and as you said, 1500 kHz is plenty
> of bandwidth.
PACTOR III has at least three other things against it beside its
excessive bandwidth.
1) it is regularly abused for automatically controlled networks by
quasi-commercial interests.
2) it is a proprietary protocol so it cannot be monitored by
those who choose not to spend the excessively high price
for the proprietary modems.
3) it lacks any "channel occupied" monitoring capabilities and
will shift to wider bandwidth modes on a whim without any
consideration of other adjacent users.
PACTOR III should be illegal for US licensees in any case but
most of all, digital modes should be limited to 500 Hz in the
current "non-phone" allocations. Bandwidths greater than 500
Hz are not compatible with traditional (CW, 170 Hz shift RTTY
and PSK31/63) "narrow" modes.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Peter Laws
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 2:26 PM
> To: RTTY
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Will You Let FCC Kill PACTOR3?
>
>
> On Dec 27, 2007 12:23 PM, Kok Chen <chen@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > RM-11392 pretty much attempts to keep Pactor III in particular, and
> > automatic stations in general, from interfering with
> keyboard digital
> > modes. Just MHO, of course.
>
>
> And this would be bad ... why? Automatic == bad, IMHO, whether it's
> Pactor or RTTY or Morse and as you said, 1500 kHz is plenty of
> bandwidth. Far from (what word was used?) "stifling" amateur
> innovation, forcing narrower bandwidth should do just the opposite.
>
> I admit to not clicking through to TFA, but I don't think it's an ARRL
> petition and we all know that the FCC only mangles ARRL proposals.
> :-P
>
> --
> Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|