Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

["Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>]

On 11/24/2013 11:52 AM, Jeff Blaine wrote:
> On this page, the winlink organization argues that they DO NOT fall
> into the "automatic" category.
Specifically:

> > On HF Pactor, the radio users of the Winlink 2000 system initiating a
> > contact are present as control operators, and therefore, WinLink 2000
> > operations do not fall within the category of "automatic control" per
> > U.S. FCC Part 97.221.
73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 11/24/2013 11:52 AM, Jeff Blaine wrote:
> Dave,
>
> On this page, the winlink organization argues that they DO NOT fall into
> the "automatic" category.
>
> http://www.winlink.org/guidelines
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> www.ac0c.com
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Blaine
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:54 PM
> To: Dave AA6YQ
> Cc: 'Ron Kolarik' ; 'RTTY'
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
>
> That's great news Dave!
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> www.ac0c.com
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Dave AA6YQ
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:48 PM
> To: 'Jeff Blaine'
> Cc: 'Ron Kolarik' ; 'RTTY'
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
>
> Remotely controlled stations and automatically controlled stations are
> separately characterized in 97.109:
>
> <http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=119>
>
> I've not found a strong definition of either  remotely controlled stations
> and automatically controlled stations in part 97, but
> 97.109 makes it clear that they are not the same thing.
>
>         73,
>
>              Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Blaine [mailto:keepwalking188@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:38 PM
> To: Dave AA6YQ; 'Ron Kolarik'; 'RTTY'
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
>
> Dave,
>
> I hope you are right.  But it seems to me that the case (auto vs. remote
> control stations are two different beasts) is contingent on either the FCC
> having explicitly defined these two things in such a way that existing law
> already supports their difference.
>
> Do we know if the FCC has a definition on the two?
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> www.ac0c.com
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Dave AA6YQ
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:31 PM
> To: 'Ron Kolarik' ; 'RTTY'
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
>
> Automatically controlled stations are not remotely-controlled stations, and
> vice versa; thus section IV would not enable the use of
> 2800 hertz for automatically controlled stations.
>
> My understanding is that WinLink servers are automatically controlled
> stations. If my interpretation is correct, these would remain
> limited in bandwidth to 500 hertz.
>
> If WinLink or any other network of automatically controlled stations are
> advertising the availability of HF servers whose bandwidth
> is greater than 500 hertz, I'd appreciate a URL.
>
>       73,
>
>             Dave, AA6YQ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Kolarik
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:20 PM
> To: Dave AA6YQ; RTTY
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
>
> Dave that looks like more lawyer type weasel words. It says it does not
> change the status of AUTOMATICALLY controlled stations. Look at Sec. IV
> where
> the remotely controlled stations are permitted 2.8khz bw. I don't know how
> many fully automatic stations are left on the air except for a few packet
> operations, just another slightly misleading part of this monstrosity.
>
> Ron
> K0IDT
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave AA6YQ" <aa6yq@ambersoft.com>
> To: <rtty@contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 6:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
>
>
> > Section II.8 of
> >
> > <http://www.arrl.org/files/media/News/Petition%20for%20Rule%20Making%20AS-FILED%2011%2015%202013.pdf>
> >
> >
> > restates the 500 hertz bandwidth limit on automatically controlled
> > stations
> > operating in the HF subbands specified by 97.221.
> > Footnote 11 says "there is no proposal herein to change the nominal
> > bandwidth
> > limitation for automatically controlled stations
> > transmitting data emissions".
> >
> > Thus the ARRL's proposal would if adopted not result in any expansion in
> > either the
> > bandwidth or HF spectrum available to
> > automatically controlled stations.
> >
> > Has anyone reached a different conclusion?
> >
> >       73,
> >
> >              Dave, AA6YQ
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3629/6361 - Release Date: 11/23/13
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3629/6361 - Release Date: 11/23/13
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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