What I cannot understand is what the underlying driver for this change
actually was. Who benefits?
These "committees" at the ARRL don't get up in the morning and say "let's
think about what unneeded modification we can come up with to petition the
FCC today." Someone lobbies someone at the ARRL for this or that reason and
tries to get support. And it's off from there.
There is a lot of "modernization" and "flexibility" listed - but who, beyond
the PACTOR guys, would actually benefit from this change. Figure that out
and we can likely connect the dots from that group to this decision.
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas W4HM
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:51 AM
To: rtty @ COL
Subject: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
I have been operating the digital modes since 2003 and have been RTTY
contesting since 2006. I am very active on most digital modes out there but
spend most of my operating time on RTTY, JT65A, JT9 and MFSK16.
During that 11 year period I've had many dozens of digital mode QSO's wiped
out by automatic and even manually operated PACTOR stations that transmit
without listening first to see if the frequency is in use.
I find that style of operarting oppressive.
If the regulation by bandwidth with a maximum bandwidth of 2800 hz becomes
the law of the land it will be a catatrophe for any ham operating any mode
on
any band, victim of a rude, selfish PACTOR station operator.
PACTOR mode operators absolutely do not care about the QRM they cause to non
PACTOR digital mode operators.
73 & GUD DX,
Thomas F. Giella W4HM
Lakeland, FL, USA
w4hm@tampabay.rr.com
W4HM Amateur & SWL Autobiography: http://www.w4hm.org
I don't usually jump into this type of a discussion, but I think that
another point of view is in order.
I do not operate RTTY contests. I enjoy an occasional RTTY QSO at low
power, usually less than 20 watts, for the joy of being able to do so.
I do, however, create digital mode software (fldigi), of which RTTY is
but one of many modes, including some of those wide band modes that some
of you you find so oppressive.
To be honest I find any operator who claims ownership to a frequency to
be oppressive, whether he or she be using SSB voice, AM voice, Pactor,
MT63-2000, MFSK-128, and yes even RTTY. In my 56 years of amateur radio
I can attest to having many a CW QRP QSO disrupted by an overly avid
RTTY contester. My 5 watt CW signal just cannot compete with the player
who is filling the RF with a legal limit amplifier. Sure plays hell
with my receivers AGC. So I've simply learned to watch TV during the
RTTY contests, unless I am testing a new decoder for fldigi. Y'all
usually go away after the contest is over. Don't discount my interest
in your favorite aspect of the hobby. I've worked many many hours to
improve fldigi's RTTY contesting capability.
Nuff said.
Dave, W1HKJ
The New Jersey redneck living in North Alabama!
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|