RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 has been amended.

To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 has been amended.
From: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Reply-to: k.siwiak@ieee.org
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:35:09 -0500
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
Chen,
Remember this crucial point:
The only thing restricting BW today is the general unavailability of radios with SSB bandwidths greater than the average of 2.45 kHz BW. PACTOR3 was designed to use 2.2 kHz EXACTLY because wider would not fit in today's radios. That will change as SDR becomes more and more available, so:
*We do need a BW limit*,
The question reduces to what that BW should be, noting that 2.2 kHz accommodates all current users, and excludes no one (FCC "in the public interest" ruling).

Pick a number between 2.2 and 2.8 kHz,
argue for the number by providing evidence that anything higher than your number causes grievous harm to current user.
That's where I got stuck!

73,
Kai, KE4PT



On 11/26/2013 7:03 PM, Kok Chen wrote:
ARRL has already amended their filing (thanks, Andy).

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017478079

It has removed the encryption clause that was put into 97.307(f)(3) in the 
original petition.

So, we can just focus on the remaining part of 97.307(f)(3) now:

i.e.,

(1) removal of symbol rate
and
(2) the 2,8 kHz bandwidth.

73
Chen, W7AY



_______________________________________________
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

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