Ron,
Hold on a sec... Your Director got it badly wrong and is doing a serious
disservice by guessing. The CURRENT regs already have that "unspecified code"
language in 97.307. The ARRL proposal does not have a "drafting error".
Your Director really needs to know what actually is in the present regs and how
it plays with the ARRL proposal, rather than guessing. Read the current regs,
then see the ARRL Appendix for what they actually propose to change. It does
make sense, the ARRL Appendix is correctly worded.
I, for one, agree with the ARRL proposal, except that I'm still not sure about
the 2800 Hz BW figure. Maybe it's ok, maybe it's too wide. But, so far, I can
find no supportable cite-able evidence (not speculation or anecdote) that 2800
Hz would cause harm to current users.
Respectfully
Kai, KE4PT
On 11/26/2013 3:49 PM, Ron Kolarik wrote:
I'm having another bad day and way behind on things, I'll get caught up
later but thought the group should know the respose I got from my division
directror. I sent him some references to the IARU bandwidth limits and also
asked about the language added/deleted in 97.307(f)(3)(4). It seems he wasn't
aware of it and said that hq told him it was a "drafting error" with the
"unspecified digital codes" at HF language and it will be addressed in a
corrected appendix. Guys you really need to hit your directors with this and
maybe a few other points to find out exactly what they either don't know or
what was kept from them. This stinks more every day.
Ron
K0IDT
_______________________________________________
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
|